DG  315   .C64  1914 

Coleman,  Christopher  Bush, 

1875-1944. 
Constantine  the  Great  and 
 Christianity   


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2015 

https://archive.org/details/constantinegreatOOcole_0 


1 

CONSTANTINE  THE  GREAT  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 


EDITED  BY  THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  OF 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  LX]  [Number  1 

Whole  Number  146 


CONSTANTINE  THE  GREAT 
AND  CHRISTIANITY 

THREE  PHASES:  THE  HISTORICAL,  THE  LEGENDARY, 
AND  THE  SPURIOUS 


CHRISTOPHER  BUSH 'cOLEMAN,  Ph.D., 

Professor  of  History,  Butler  College^  Indianapolis,  Ind. 


IXm  Dork 

THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 
London:  P.  S.  King  &  Scn 
1914 


Copyright,  1914 

BY 

CHRISTOPHER  BUSH  COLEMAN 


PREFACE 


If  any  defense  is  necessary  for  discussing  to-day  not 
only  the  Constantine  of  history  but  also  the  historic 
ghost  of  Constantine,  i.  e.,  the  legends  and  the  forgery 
which  later  times  produced  in  his  name,  it  can  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  starting  at  one  time  with  a  study  of  the 
religious  revolution  which  centered  in  Constantine,  and 
at  another  with  the  "Donation  of  Constantine,"  forged 
in  the  eighth  century,  I  found  myself  in  both  instances 
without  any  logical  stopping-place  short  of  a  considera- 
tion of  the  whole  field.  If  in  the  present  work  parts  of 
this  field  are  somewhat  imperfectly  covered,  it  is  my 
hope  that  these  imperfections  may  not  too  seriously 
impeach  the  soundness  of  this  procedure.  Even  the 
brief  summary  herein  given  of  the  modern  critical  study 
of  Constantine  and  Constantinian  legends  furnishes,  in 
contrast  with  the  early  medieval  accounts  of  the  emperor, 
an  interesting  illustration  of  the  revolution  wrought  by 
the  modern,  scientific-historical  spirit.  It  gains  peculiar 
interest  when  one  considers  that  Constantine  was  perhaps 
the  greatest  promoter  of  that  other  revolution,  in  which 
the  Christian  church  gained  the  mastery  of  the  Roman  and 
Medieval  mind,  and  that  the  Constantinian  legends  were 
among  the  notable  products  of  the  type  of  piety  long 
promoted  by  that  church.  Two  of  the  greatest  revolu- 
tions in  European  history  thus  confront  each  other,  as  it 
were,  upon  common  ground. 

I  have  tried  to  indicate  in  the  following  pages  the 
various  items  of  my  indebtedness  in  the  preparation  of 


11 


PREFACE 


this  work.  In  some  cases,  however,  mere  references  are 
not  enough.  The  writings  of  Professor  O.  Seeck  have 
not  only  given  me  much  information  which  I  would 
otherwise  have  missed,  but  have  proved  stimulating  and 
fruitful  in  suggestions.  The  "Prolegomena"  and  notes 
which  Professor  A.  C.  McGiffert  and  Dr.  E.  C.  Richard- 
son contributed  some  twenty-five  years  ago  to  the  vol- 
ume devoted  to  Eusebius  in  the  Nicene  and  Post-Nzcefie 
Fathers  were  among  the  first  guides  to  introduce  me  to 
the  field  of  work  in  which  I  have  since  found  much 
rather  unexpected  interest.  To  Lorenzo  Valla's  Libellus 
de  /also  credit  a  et  ementita  Consta7ttint  donatione,  with 
its  keen  wit  and  able,  though  defective,  historical  criti- 
cism, I  owe  my  first  interest  in  subjects  dealt  with  in  the 
latter  part  of  my  work. 

I  had  originally  intended  to  add  an  English  translation 
of  Valla's  Treatise  as  an  appendix  to  this  work.  It  has 
seemed  best,  however,  to  publish  the  translation,  together 
with  a  critical  edition  of  the  text,  in  separate  form. 
This,  I  hope,  may  appear  within  a  short  time.  Among 
the  greatest  obligations  I  owe  for  help  in  the  present 
publication  is  that  to  Professor  Deane  P.  Lockwood,  of 
Columbia  University,  for  his  reading  and  frequent  re- 
vision of  this  translation.  Though  the  publication  of 
this  is  deferred,  many  of  his  suggestions  have  been  of 
value  in  other  connections. 

To  Professor  J.  T.  Shotwell,  of  Columbia  University, 
I  am  indebted  for  countless  manifestations  of  efficient 
leadership  in  a  field  of  study  in  which  he  is  master,  for 
suggestions  both  as  to  the  general  plan  and  as  to  details, 
which  have  always  been  helpful.  For  the  time  and 
trouble  which  he  has  freely  given  no  acknowledgment 
can  be  too  great.  I  wish  also  to  express  my  sense  of 
obligation  to  Professor  W.  W.  Rockwell,  of  Union 


PREFACE 


iii 


Theological  Seminary,  for  reading  my  manuscript  and 
strengthening  the  discussion  of  a  number  of  points  by 
his  comments.  Among  others  who  have  contributed, 
either  by  direct  suggestions  or  by  making  it  possible  for 
me  to  obtain  books  otherwise  inaccessible,  are  Professors 
J.  H.  Robinson  and  Munro  Smith,  of  Columbia  Uni- 
versity, Professor  George  L.  Burr,  of  Cornell  University, 
and  my  colleagues,  H.  M.  Gelston  and  E.  H.  Hollands, 
now  of  the  University  of  Kansas.  To  the  editors  of  the 
Series  in  which  this  work  appears  my  thanks  are  due  for 
courteous  and  effective  co-operation  and  for  help  w'hich 
has  made  the  burden  of  publication  comparatively  easy. 

Christopher  B.  Coleman. 

Butler  College,  Indianapolis,  April,  1914, 


{ 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGB 

Introduction   9 

PART  ONE 

CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 
THE  HISTORICAL  FACTS 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Problem  ,   17 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Imprint  of  Christianity  upon  Constantine's  Laws, 
Inscriptions  and  Writings 

1.  Laws   25 

2.  Coinage   45 

3.  Inscriptions   47 

4.  Writings   53 

CHAPTER  III 

Imperial  Patronage  of  Christianity;  Attitude  toward  Paganism 

1.  Church  building   56 

2.  Constantine's  actions  at  Rome     61 

3.  Personal  favor  shown  churchmen  and  the  church   62 

4.  Attitude  toward  paganism     63 

5.  Constantine's  activity  in  church  affairs,  and  his  motives   67 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  "  Conversion  "  of  Constantine,  and  the  Religious 
Revolution  of  His  Time 

1.  Various  early  versions   72 

2.  Constantine's  early  paganism   73 

3.  Campaign  against  Maxentius,  and  adoption  of  the  Christian  labarum  .  ,  77 

5]  5 

V 


6                                     CONTENTS  [  6 

PACE 

4.  Constantine's  Christianity      81 

5.  Transition  from  paganism  to  Christianity  in  the  Roman  Empire  ....  82 

6.  Constantine's  baptism   87 

7.  Ethical  aspects  of  Constantine's  life   89 

8.  Summary   94 


PART  TWO 

THE  LEGENDARY  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 
CHAPTER  I 


The  Legend  Makers 

1.  Significance  of  legends  about  Constantine   99 

2.  Lack  of  the  historical  spirit  in  Constantine's  time   100 

3.  Incentives  to  legend  making   102 

4.  Constantine's  part  in  the  process   105 

5.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea   107 

CHAPTER  II 

Legends  of  Constantine's  Origin  and  Rise  to  Imperial  Position  ; 
Legends  About  Helena 

1.  Legend  of  Claudian  descent   112 

2.  Legends  of  Helena  and  the  True  Cross   116 

3.  Later  legends  of  Constantine's  birth  and  rise  to  imperial  position.    ...  120 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Hostile,  Pagan  I  egend  of  Constantine 

1.  Its  meagerness   123 

2.  Emperor  Julian's  version  of  Constantine   124 

3.  Development  of  the  pagan  legend   128 

CHAPTER  IV 
Early  Legends  of  Divine  Aid,  Conversion,  Saintliness 

1.  Pagan  and  Christian  legends  of  divine  aid   131 

2.  Early  legends  of  miraculous  conversion   135 

3.  Legends  of  saintliness   141 

4.  Legends  of  church  building     147 

5.  Legends  of  the  founding  of  Constantinople   148 


7]  CONTENTS  y 

FAca 

CHAPTER  V 

Later  Legends  of  Constantine's  Conversion  and  Baptism 

1.  Legends  of  Constantine's  conversion  by  Helena,  of  his   baptism  by 

Eusebius  of  Rome  152 

2.  Earliest  version  of  Constantine's  leprosy  153 

3.  Armenian  version  of  this  legend   .   ......  155 

4.  Connection  of  the  legend  with  Rome  and  with  Sylvester  158 

5.  The  Vita  Silvestri  161 

6.  Development  of  the  Sylvester-Constantine  legend   .      .   .  164 

7.  General  acceptance  of  the  legend  •  .  .   .  169 

PART  THREE 

THE  SPURIOUS  CONSTANTINE:  THE 
CONSTITUTUM  CONSTANTINI 

CHAPTER  I 
History  of  the  Constitutum  Constantini 

1.  The  Constitutum  Constantini  and  the  "  Donation  "  it  contains  175 

2.  Acceptance  and  use  of  the  Constitutum  Constantini  and  its  "  Donation  "  178 

CHAPTER  II 
Exposure  of  the  Forgery 

1.  Stages  of  criticism  184 

2.  Criticism  of  the     Donation  "  previous  to  the  fifteenth -century.   .....  184 

3.  The  contest  against  the  papacy  in  the  early  fifteenth  century,  and  Cusanus' 

criticism  of  the  "  Donation  "  188 

4.  Valla's  Treatise  191 

5.  Other  critics  in  the  time  of  the  Renaissance  199 

CHAPTER  III 

The  "  Donation  "  in  the  Protestant  Revolution.  Modern 
Scientific  Criticism  of  the  "  Donation  " 

1.  Hutten's  publication  of  Valla's  Treatise   203 

2.  Luther's  attitude,  Protestant  attack,  Catholic  defense   204 

3.  Baronius     206 

4.  Character  of  modern,  scientific,  criticism    208 

5.  Conclusions  as  to  the  origin  of  the  "  Donation  "   209 


8                                    CONTENTS  ["8 

PAGE 

Appendix  to  Part  Three 

Documents  Connected  with  the  History  of  the  Constitutum 
constantini  and  the  "  donation  " 

I.  Vita  Silvestri  (in  part)   217 

II.  Constitutum  Constantini   228 

III.  Cusanus'  criticism  of  the  '<  Donation  "  ,  .  .   .         ...         .   .  237 

Bibliography   243 

Index  ,                                                   .  .  255 


t 
i 


INTRODUCTION 


Few  generations  have  occupied  a  position  of  such  de- 
cisive importance  in  European  history  as  did  that  of 
Constantine  the  Great.  It  was  the  crisis  in  the  rise  of 
Christianity  to  dominance  in  European  civilization.  The 
part  which  the  Emperor  himself  took  in  this  momentous 
revolution  makes  him  one  of  the  most  commanding 
figures  of  antiquity.  It  is  with  this  aspect  alone  of  his 
reign  that  the  following  pages  deal.  Though  his  mili- 
tary, financial  and  political  arrangements  were  of  con- 
siderable significance  for  subsequent  times,  I  have 
referred  to  them  only  incidentally,  and  so  far  as  is  neces- 
sary for  my  specific  purpose.  I  have,  however,  attempted 
to  make  a  fairly  full  and  critical  study  of  Constantine  in 
his  relation  to  Christianity. 

This  study  early  divided  itself  into  three  sections. 
First,  it  was  necessary  to  get  at  the  historical  facts,  so 
far  as  ascertainable,  of  Constantine's  attitude  toward 
Christianity  and  the  Church.  Second,  the  legendary 
process  had  to  be  taken  into  account  by  which  Constan- 
tine's actual  position  in  religious  matters  was  dis- 
torted, and  in  this  distorted  form  influenced  subsequent 
generations.  In  the  third  place,  consideration  had  to  be 
given  to  the  extension  of  this  legendary  process  in  a 
great  forgery,  the  so-called  Donation  of  Constantine. 
The  first  Christian  emperor  may  thus  be  said  to  have 
had  in  European  history  three  distinct  spheres  of  influ- 
ence, occupied  respectively  by  the  real,  the  legendary, 
and  the  spurious  Constantine.  The  latter  two  have  their 
9]  ^  9 


lO  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [lo 

own  intrinsic  importance  as  well  as  the  first/  They  are 
of  interest  also  as  illustrating  the  history  of  the  intel- 
lectual development  of  Europe.  No  tests  of  this  devel- 
opment are  more  illuminating  than  the  function  played 
in  various  generations  by  legendary  processes  and  the 
reaction  of  different  groups  of  men  toward  mistaken 
traditional  conceptions. 

The  historical"  rather  than  the  "real"  Constantine, 
however,  must  be  our  point  of  departure.  Even  in  fields 
where  vast  funds  of  original  sources  of  information  are 
at  hand  and  where  an  enormous  amount  of  critical  work 
has  been  done,  it  is  presumptuous  to  claim  knowledge 
of  men  and  of  facts  as  they  would  appear  to  the  eyes  of 
omniscience.  The  best  that  we  can  do  under  the  most 
favorable  circumstances  is  to  approximate  toward  the 
real  men  and  the  real  facts ;  between  us  and  them  there 
always  remains  a  margin  of  ignorance,  if  not  of  error, 
which  we  may  well  call  the  ''historical  equation."  This 
does  not  mean  that  we  are  left  with  merely  "  lies  agreed 
upon,"  for  modern  scientific  methods  are  rigorous  guides 
toward  the  truth,  and  though  lies  remain,  even  the  most 
superficial  reader  knows  how  far  historians  are  from 
agreeing  upon  them.  In  discussing  men  of  the  fourth 
century,  however,  it  must  be  admitted  that  anything  like 
complete  truth  seems  unattainable.  Information  on  most 
important  points  often  fails  us  entirely,  and,  as  will  be 
seen,  much  information  that  we  possess  is  open  to  grave 
suspicion.  Yet  with  reference  to  Constantine,  it  can  be 
said  that  we  possess  a  mass  of  evidence  which  has  been 
made  available  in  critical  editions  of  sources,  and  which 

'C/.  Dunning:  * 'Truth  in  History."  America?t  Historical  Review, 
xxix  (1914),  pp.  217-229.  The  point  is  that  primary  importance  often 
attaches  not  so  much  to  what  happened,  as  to  what  later  ages  believed 
to  have  happened. 


Il]  INTRODUCTION  II 

is  being  augmented  and  sifted  to  such  an  extent  that  a 
reliable  historical  discussion  of  his  religious  position  is 
possible.    This  I  attempt  to  give  in  Part  One. 

Legends  about  Constantine  have  for  the  most  part 
been  approached  from  a  mistaken  point  of  view.  They 
have  been  used  by  some  as  reliable  sources  and  by  others 
have  been  scornfully  rejected  as  not  worth  consideration. 
Both  attitudes  are  wrong. 

The  time  has  passed  for  the  kind  of  history  that  is 
made  up  of  unsupported  traditions  or  that  fills  in  its 
vacant  spaces  and  obscure  origins  with  untested  stories. 
Legend  usually  throws  little  light  upon  the  actual  course 
of  events,  and  Vv'hat  light  it  does  throw  is  generally  mis- 
leading, so  that  in  reconstructing  the  past  the  investi- 
gator often  does  well  to  ignore  it  entirely  unless  he  has 
some  test  by  which  to  sort  out  its  genuine  basis  from  its 
fable.  Instead  of  trying  to  sift  out  truth  from  error  by 
making  allowances  for  probable  distortions,  he  usually 
does  better  if  he  looks  for  other  sources  of  information 
in  documents,  in  monuments  and  in  traces  of  earlier 
conditions  surviving  in  later  institutions.  Scientific  re- 
search has  not  only  destroyed  mistaken  legends,  but  has 
been  able  to  displace  so  many  of  these  by  more  reliable 
facts  that  the  validity  of  this  method  can  no  longer  be 
doubted. 

But  though  legendary  history  is  doomed,  the  history 
of  the  legend  remains.  The  story  it  contains  may  not 
throw  much  light  upon  the  subject  about  which  it  has 
grown  up,  but  it  reveals  the  working  of  the  minds  of  the 
people  w^ho  consciously  or  unconsciously  created  it.  A 
legend  may  often  be  the  most  direct  approach  to  the 
spirit  of  the  time  in  which  it  gained  currency,  and  the 
clearest  illustration  of  its  ideals  and  its  modes  of  thought. 
Its  deviation  from  historical  fact  is  here  the  most  im- 
portant thing  about  it. 


12 


CGNSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[12 


After  the  legend  becomes  crystallized  its  history  is 
significant.  The  most  obvious  value  is  the  influence 
which  it  exercises  where  it  is  accepted.  For  an  accepted 
legend  has  just  as  much  influence  as  an  accepted  histor- 
ical truth.  The  mistaken  belief  of  American  statesmen 
about  the  boundaries  of  Louisiana  determined  their  atti- 
tude toward  the  limitation  of  Florida  and  of  Mexico 
precisely  as  if  this  belief  were  correct.  Unfounded 
pagan  stories  about  the  early  Christians,  and  unfounded 
Christian  stories  about  the  Jews,  had  all  the  potency  of 
verified  facts. 

A  less  obvious,  but  an  important  value  of  the  history 
of  a  crystallized  legend  attaches  to  the  attitude  taken 
toward  it  by  those  whom  their  generation  esteems  its 
scholars.  Their  acceptance  or  rejection  of  it,  the  tests 
they  apply  to  it,  and  the  way  in  which  they  fit  it  into 
their  general  fund  of  knowledge  shows  vividly  the  intel- 
lectual level  of  their  age.  A  wide  study  of  legends  would 
be  one  of  the  most  illuminating  chapters  in  the  history 
of  history.  Part  Two,  dealing  with  legends  about  Con- 
stantine,  is  an  attempt  to  contribute  to  this  end. 

The  Donation  of  Constantine  takes  us  into  the  study 
of  a  different  field  of  intellectual  activity.  Legends  are 
the  spontaneous  creation  of  man's  fancy.  They  are  often 
the  echo  of  his  own  deepest  convictions  and  highest 
ideals  projected  into  the  past  and  coming  back  to  him 
as  the  voices  of  the  dead.  But  not  all  the  men  of  the 
Middle  Ages  were  satisfied  to  let  their  imagination  play 
about  the  tomb  of  the  first  Christian  emperor.  They 
brought  him  at  length  out  of  his  grave  and  put  into  his 
mouth  a  legal  grant  of  vast  powers  to  the  Roman  Church 
and  the  Roman  bishop.  Perhaps  in  the  mind  of  the 
forger  this  was  not  an  essentially  different  act  from  the 
earlier  legendary  processes.    Scheffer-Boichorst  argues 


jo]  introduction  13 

that  his  chief  motive  was  the  glorification  of  Constantine 
and  Pope  Sylvester,  to  whom  the  grant  was  assumed  to 
be  made/  The  late  Doctor  Hodgkin  even  suggested, 
hesitatingly,  that  the  Donation  might  have  been  originally 
composed  as  an  exercise  in  romancing.''  But  in  form  at 
least  it  was  plainly  a  forgery,  and  even  in  the  eighth  and 
ninth  centuries  such  forgeries  were  punishable  with 
death.''  It  was  taken  seriously  and  generally  accepted 
as  a  legal  document  for  nearly  six  hundred  years.  It 
filled  so  large  a  place  in  the  thought  of  Europe  that  we 
can  justly  call  it  the  most  famous  forgery  in  history. 
Dr.  Hodgkin  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  The  story  of 
the  Donation  of  Constantine  fully  told  would  almost  be 
the  history  of  the  Middle  Ages."  * 

On  the  other  hand,  the  unravelling  of  this  skein  of 
forgery  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  phases  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  modern  scientific  spirit.  The  proof 
advanced  by  Lorenzo  Valla  that  the  document  was  spur- 
ious constitutes  in  the  Renaissance  an  event  emphasized 
by  many  writers.  In  more  recent  times  discussion  of 
various  problems  connected  with  the  forgery  has  engaged 
the  energy  of  many  of  the  foremost  historians  of  Italy, 
France,  England,  and  especially  of  Germany,  and  has 
produced  an  extensive  and  important  historical  literature. 
A  careful  and  systematic  study  of  this  whole  develop- 
ment, such  as  is  attempted  in  the  following  pages  in 
Part  Three,  will  throw  considerable  light  upon  the 
workings  of  both  the  medieval  and  the  modern  mind. 

^Cf.  infra,  p.  211  ei  seq. 

^ Italy  and  Her  Invaders ,  vol.  vii.,  (1899)  p.  135  et  seq. 
^  Cf.  Brunner :  Das  Constitutum  Constantini,  in  Festgabe  fur  Rudolf 
von  Gneist,  pp.  34-35. 
*  Op.  cit..  vii.,  p.  135. 


1 

i 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

PART  ONE 
THE  HISTORICAL  FACTS 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  PROBLEM 

What  was  the  precise  part  of  Constantine  in  the  revo- 
lution by  which  Christianity  became  the  dominant  re- 
Hgion  of  European  civilization?  The  question  and  its 
answer  have  many  ramifications.  Of  little  importance 
for  us  is  the  much-discussed  matter  of  the  sincerity  of 
his  motives.  Plausible  motives  are  easily  manufactured 
to  fit  any  point  of  view  and  aid  immensely  in  the  con- 
struction of  an  interesting,  consistent  narrative;  but  the 
purposes  actually  controlling  a  man's  conduct  are  often 
obscure  to  himself  and,  save  by  means  of  self-rev- 
elation, not  often  ascertainable  by  others.  Only  novelists 
may  postulate  a  set  of  motives  and  develop  conduct 
accordingly;  the  historian  may  infer  them,  but  he  is 
not  at  liberty  to  reconstruct  the  course  of  events  upon 
such  inferences.  The  important  questions  are  really 
those  of  conduct  and  of  public  influence,  and  these 
are  matters  of  record  and  of  fact.  If  the  public  policy 
of  Constantine  and  the  course  of  his  religious  life,  so  far 
as  it  was  in  the  open,  can  be  ascertained,  we  shall  know 
all  that  is  here  essential.  And  this  knowledge  will  take 
us  to  the  very  heart  of  the  reciprocal  process  by  which 
the  Roman  Empire  assumed  Christianity,  and  the  Church 
assumed,  so  far  as  in  it  lay,  the  control  of  the  future  of 
Europe. 

Both  phases  of  this  process  seem  at  first  sight  utterly 
revolutionary.    Under  Constantine's   immediate  prede- 
17]  ^7 


l8  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [ig 

cessors  the  Roman  government  bent  itself  to  the  task 
of  exterminating  Christianity  as  an  alien  and  hostile 
power.  Under  him  and  his  immediate  successors  the 
resources  of  the  state  were  often  put  at  the  disposal  of 
the  church.  The  empire,  in  addition  to  its  already 
crushing  burdens,  took  up  the  support  of  the  church 
and  made  itself  the  vehicle  upon  which  the  once  perse- 
cuted religion  rode  in  triumph  to  its  task  of  establishing 
the  "  City  of  God "  upon  the  earth.  The  church  pre- 
-"sents  an  equally  startling  contrast  in  its  progress.  Not 
long  before  this  the  disciples  of  Jesus  had  been  a  power- 
less minority,  under  the  control  of  a  political  and  social 
system  which  outraged  their  religion.  Most  of  them,  in 
the  first  days  in  Palestine,  and  afterwards  for  several 
generations,  saw  no  outcome  for  the  hopeless  conflict  of 
the  new  life  with  the  old  order  except  in  some  great 
cataclysm  in  which  the  existing  world-order  itself  should 
be  utterly  destroyed  and  Christ  should  reign  with  his 
saints  in  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth.  In  the  third 
century  they  still  thought  of  their  hope  and  their  true 
citizenship  as  in  heaven,  for  this  world  seemed  hopelessly 
hostile  and  evil.  Within  a  single  generation,  however, 
this  was,  for  the  leading  churchmen,  all  changed.  A 
new  and  fresh  era  of  existence  had  begun  to  appear  and 
a  light  hitherto  unknown  suddenly  to  dawn  from  the 
midst  of  darkness  on  the  human  race."'  When  that 
apparent  impossibility,  a  Christian  emperor,  came  upon 
the  scene,  and  invited  into  his  council-chamber  bishops 
who  bore  upon  their  bodies  the  marks  of  jail  and  tor- 
ture, at  least  one  of  those  present  thought  that  a  pic- 
ture of  Christ's  kingdom  was  thus  shadowed  forth." 
While  the  future  heaven  has  never  passed  out  of  the 

*  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  i. 
Ibid.y  iii,  15. 


ig]  THE  PROBLEM  ig 

thought  of  the  church,  this  shadowing  forth  of  it  upon 
earth  speedily  absorbed  the  energy  of  a  large  proportion 
of  churchmen.  The  world  was  no  longer  hopelessly 
hostile  ;  the  church  was  at  home  in  it,  and  contemplation 
of  the  speedy  and  hoped-for  destruction  of  the  earth 
gave  place  to  an  age-long  struggle  to  control  and  gov- 
ern it  in  the  name  of  him  whom  it  had  once  crucified. 

This  double  transformation,  one  of  the  greatest  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  was,  however,  wrought  by  forces 
which  can  be,  to  a  large  extent,  historically  analyzed  and 
estimated.  Many  of  them  had  long  been  working  slowly 
and  almost  imperceptibly.  They  converged  in  Con- 
stantine,  and  it  is  this  that  gives  importance  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  part  he  had  in  them.  His  career  is  an  illus- 
tration of  the  process,  and  his  reign  marks  its  crisis. 
It  is  of  great  importance,  therefore,  to  find  out,  so  far  as 
the  emperor  was  concerned,  how  the  government  ac- 
cepted Christianity  and  how  Christians  accepted  the 
governance  of  the  world. 

The  answer  to  these  questions  is  not  ready  at  hand. 
There  is,  to  be  sure,  much  material,  and  most  of  it  has 
been  critically  examined  from  one  point  of  view  or 
another.  Literature  upon  Constantine  has  been  almost 
steadily  produced  ever  since  the  beginning  of  his  reign, 
and  has  been  recently  stimulated  by  various  official  cele- 
brations of  the  sixteenth  centennial  (1913)  of  the  Edict, 
or  Rescript,  of  Milan.  The  main  facts  of  his  career  seem 
fairly  well  established,  but  historical  complacency  is 
always  subject  to  jolts  such  as  that  received  from  Otto 
Seeck's  attempt  in  1891  to  prove  that  there  had  never 
been  any  Edict  of  Milan.  The  prevailing  views  of  Con- 
stantine's  religious  position,  developed  out  of  many 
variant  opinions  and  considerable  controversy,  must  still 
be  held  subject  to  review  and  revision. 


20  COXSTAXTIXE  AXD  CHRISTIAXITY  [20 

Until  modern  times  historians  generally  accepted  as 
an  established  fact  that  he  openly  and  sincerely  professed 
Christianity  from  the  time  of  his  victory  over  Maxentius 
(312).  Gibbon,  in  "  T/ie  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman 
Empire,''  looked  upon  him  as  a  supporter  of  the  church, 
and  thought  that  his  conversion  m.ay  perhaps  have  been 
genuine.'  Niebuhr,  however,  saw  in  Constantine  a  "re- 
pulsive phenomenon"  of  mingled  paganism  and  Christi- 
anity, a  superstitious  man  pursuing  his  own  selfish  ends.^ 
Burckhardt  in  ''Die  Zeit  Constayitins  der  Grosse7t,''  an 
epoch-making  work  and  for  years  the  standard  life  of 
Constantine,  started  with  the  bold  (and  unhistorical) 
proposition  that  in  the  case  of  a  man  of  genius,  to 
whom  ambition  and  desire  for  mastery  give  no  rest, 
there  can  be  no  question  of  Christianity  or  paganism  ; 
such  a  man  is  essentially  unreligious."  ^  He  even  char- 
acterized Constantine  as  a  "  m.urdering  egoist,"  and 
ascribes  to  him  as  his  only  religion,  a  belief  in  his  own 
conquering  genius.  His  laws  accordingly  were  held  to 
indicate  not  even  a  desire  to  advance  the  interests  of 
Christianity,  but  only  his  use  of  that  religion  as  part  of 
the  political  machinery  of  the  empire. 

AJter  Burckhardt,  the  tendency  ran  strongly  toward 
acceptance  of  the  view  that  Constantine  professed  to 
adopt  Christianity  for  political  motives  and  used  it  for 
political  purposes,  but  did  not  commit  either  himself  or 
the  empire  to  it.  Theodor  Keim  ^  while  contending  that 
Constantine  was  affected  somewhat  by  Christianity  and 

^Chap.  XX. 

^Lectures  on  the  History  of  Rome.  Third  ed.,  Eng.  trans.,  1853,  iii, 
p.  318. 

^P.  369  (this  work  appeared  first  in  1853), 

*  Der  Uebertritt  Constantins  des  Grossen  zum  Christenthum,  1862. 


21] 


THE  PROBLEM 


21 


came  out  openly  as  a  Christian  at  the  end '  interpreted 
his  official  actions  as  hedging  between  paganism  and 
Christianity.  Theodor  Zahn pictured  him  as  champion 
of  a  vague  monotheism,  not  specifically  Christian,  till  his 
contest  with  Licinius,  thereafter  he  was  definitely  Chris- 
tian. Marquardt  ^  affirmed  that  Constantine  erected 
heathen  temples  in  Constantinople  and  that  he  never 
broke  wath  Roman  religious  traditions ;  it  was  uncertain 
whether  he  ever  was  a  Christian.  Brieger^  inferred  from 
Constantine's  coinage  and  other  records  that  he  had  a 
sort  of  Christian  superstition  wdiich  yet  did  not  supplant 
his  original  heathen  ideas.  Victor  Duruy^  found  Con- 
stantine's emblems  and  religious  deliverances  ambiguous, 
and  the  emperor's  actions  the  result  of  calculation,  not 
of  religious  conviction  or  even  preference.  Herman 
Schiller^  endeavored  to  prove  a  gradual  favoring  of 
Christianity  at  least  to  the  extent  of  putting  it  on  a  legal 
level  with  the  old  paganism,  and  concluded  that  Con- 
stantine's policy  was  to  form  an  official  religion  balanc- 
ing the  better  elements  of  pagan  monotheism  with  Chris- 

^Keim  rendered  the  phrase  with  which  Constantine  prefaced  the  an- 
nouncement of  his  decision  to  be  baptized,  as  given  by  Eusebius  in  his 
Lite  of  Constantine  (iv,  62),  "let  all  duplicity  be  banished,"  thus  im- 
plying that  the  emperor  had  previously  been  two-faced.  The  Greek 
term  used,  a//0//?o/.m,  means  merely  doubt,  or  uncertainty,  and  Eusebius, 
of  all  men,  would  not  have  implied  any  hypocrisy  on  the  emperor's 
part. 

'  Constantin  der  Grosse  und  die  Kirche,  1876. 
^  Romische  Staatsverwaltung  (1878),  iii,  113. 

*  Constantin  der  Grosse  als  Religionspolitiker,  Zeitschrift  fur  Kir- 
chengeschichte  iv  (1880),  ii,  163. 

Histoire  des  Romains,  1870  and  later,  vol.  vii,  p.  127  ff.;  "  Les 
Premieres  annees  du  regne  de  Constantin ' '  in  Compte  rendu  de 
V Acadtmie  des  Sciences  morales  et  poliiiques,  xvi,  737-765  (1881),  and 
*'La  politique  religieuse  de  Constantin,"  7(^>z£/.,  xvii,  185-227  (1882), 
and  Revue  archaeologique,  xliii,  g^-iio,  155-175  (1882). 

^  Geschichte  der  romischen  Kaiserzeit ,  1883-7. 


22 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[22 


!     tianity.    Victor  Schultze/  Grisar,  ^  and  G.  Boissiere  de- 
fended his  essential  Christianity. 

The  remarkable  work  of  O.  Seeck/  which  has  almost 
superseded  earlier  writings  on  the  subject,  has  at  length 
reshaped  historical  opinion  about  Constantine.  Seeck's 
conclusion,  from  a  most  exhaustive  study  of  all  the  sources, 
is  that  Constantine  was  favorably  inclined  to  Christianity 
from  the  first,  that  he  was  definitely  converted  to  adher- 
ence to  the  God  of  the  Christians  as  his  patron  and  luck- 
bringer  during  the  campaign  against  Maxentius  ^  and  that 
thereafter  he  supported  the  Christian  church  even  to  the 
point  of  subserviency,  and  introduced  Christianity  as  the 
state  religion  so  far  as  conditions  permitted.  In  many  of 
his  contentions  Seeck  has  been  vigorously  attacked  by  F. 
Gorres^  and  others,  yet  he  and  Schultze  have  exer- 
cised dominant  influence  and  have  been  very  generally 
followed.  7    Duchesne^  looks  upon  Constantine  as  a  gen- 

'  Geschichte  des  Untergangs  des  griechischen  roniischen  Heidentums , 
1887-03. 

*  "  Die  vorgeblichen  Beweise  gegen  die  Christlichkeit  Constantins  des 
Grosser!  ",  in  Zeitschrift  fur  katholische  Theologie  vi  (1882)  585-607. 

Essais  d'histoire  religieuse  "  in  Revue  des  deux  Mondes  July  1886 
pp.  51-72,  "  La  Fin  du  Pagmiisme  "  (1891). 

Geschichte  des  Untergangs  der  antiken  Welt  1895  et  seg.,  second 
edition  1897  seq.,  third  edition  1910  et  seq.,  and  numerous  articles  in 
historical  reviews,  especially  in  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.  ^312  A.  D. 

^Zeitschrift  ficr  wissenschaftliche  Theologie  (1892),  p.  282  et  seq. 
Eg.,  J.  B.  Bury  in  his  edition  of  Gibbon  :  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire  (1896),  vol.  ii,  append.  19,  pp.  566-568;  W.  K.  Boyd: 
The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodosian  Code,  Columbia  University 
Studies  in  ITistory,  Economics  and  Public  Law  vol.  xxiv  (1905),  pp. 
16-21.  An  interesting  illustration  of  this  transformation  of  historical 
opinion  is  seen  in  the  revision  of  current  text-books  for  ancient  history 
in  line  with  Seecks'  contentions.  Cf.  G.  W.  Botsford  :  Ancient  History 
for  Beginners  (1902),  pp.  422-43,  and  his  History  of  the  Ancient  World 
(1913),  pp.  514-515. 

^ Histoire  ancienne  de  VEglise,  vol.  ii,  English  trans.  (1912),  pp. 
45-71.    The  first  edition  was  dated  1905. 


23] 


THE  PROBLEM 


23 


uine  convert  and  patron  of  the  church.  Ludwig  Wrzol' 
emphasizes  Constantine's  ascription  of  victory-giving 
power  to  the  Christian  God  and  looks  upon  most  of  the 
emperor's  actions  after  the  battle  at  the  Milvian  bridge  as 
an  expression  of  his  desire  to  be  on  the  right  side  of  this 
power.  Ed.  Schwartz  ^  finds  in  him  sincere  attachment 
to  Christianity  in  its  organized  form,  but  far  from  admit- 
ting his  subserviency  to  the  Christian  bishops  which  Seeck 
describes,  he  pictures  Constantine  as  the  ambitious  seeker 
of  supreme  power  and  dominating  master  of  the  church. 
In  the  first  proposition  he  is  thus  in  agreement  with 
Seeck,  but  in  the  latter  with  Burckhardt.  One  recent 
writer  3  turns  against  the  present  tendency,  to  substantial 
agreement  with  Burckhardt's  view  of  the  emperor's  char-  ' 
acter  and  describes  him  as  utterly  irreligious  and  taking 
up  with  Christianity  for  merely  political  purposes.  But 
in  this  Geffcken  stands  almost  alone.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  contributors  to  the  most  pretentious  of  the 
books  called  out  by  the  centennial  of  the  Edict  of  Milan, 
Konstantin  der  Grosse  und  seine  Zeit,^  reproduce  in 
large  part  that  view  of  the  relations  of  Constantine  and 
the  church  most  favorable  to  both.  ^ 

While,  as  has  been  said,  the  main  facts  of  Constantine's 
career  now  seem  clear,  the  very  bulk  of  this  literature, 
as  well  as  the  differences  and  contradictions  it  expresses, 

^  Konstantins  des  Grossen  persdnliche  Siellung  zum  Christentum. 
Weidenauer  Studien,  I  (1906),  pp.  227-269, 

Kaiser  Constantin  und  die  christliche  Kirche  (1913). 
*Johs.  Geffcken,  Aus  der  Werdezeit  des  Christentums  (1904),  p.  97 
et  seq. 

'Edited  by  F.  J.  Dolger,  1913. 

*  For  other  recent  discussions  see  Gwatkin  in  Cambridge  Medieval 
History,  vol.  i  (1911)  p.  10  et  seq.,  and  J.  B.  Carter:  The  Religious 
Life  of  Ancient  Rome  (1911),  p.  wj  et  seq. 


24  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [24 

calls  for  a  general  restatement  of  his  attitude  in  religious 
matters,  and  for  a  revaluation  of  its  significance.  Such 
restatement  must  take  into  account  the  knowledge  which 
recent  years  have  brought  of  the  general  religious  con- 
dition of  Constantine's  times.  It  is  possible  only  on  the 
basis  of  an  examination  of  all  the  original  evidence. 
And  in  this  the  emphasis  must  be  put  upon  legal  and 
monumental  sources,  such  as  are  contained  in  the  Theo- 
dosian  Code  and  in  coins  and  inscriptions ;  for,  as  will 
be  shown  later,  the  writers  of  the  fourth  century  had 
little  comprehension  of  pure  historical  truth  and  less  de- 
votion to  it.  Partisanship,  eulogy,  and  defamation  were 
all  too  common,  and  these  were  then,  as  now,  more  apt 
to  create  legends  than  to  produce  adequate  appreciation 
of  men  and  events. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  IMPRINT  OF  CHRISTIANITY  UPON  CONSTANTINE's 
LAWS,  INSCRIPTIONS  AND  WRITINGS 

I .  Legislation ' 

CoNSTANTiNE  was  a  voluminous  law-maker ;  fragments 
of  nearly  300  of  his  laws  are  in  existence,  and  we  have 
information  about  others  issued  and  now  lost.''  He  was 
not  a  systematic  nor  a  careful  legislator;  many  of  his  laws 
are  not  clear,  many  are  trivial,  and  many  are  badly  ex- 

^  For  various  phases  of  this  subject  cf.  Seeck's  discussion  of  Con- 
stantine's  laws  in  Zeitschrift  der  Savigny  Stiftung  ficr  Rechtsge- 
schichte,  Romanische  Abteilung,  x,  p.  i  et  seq.,  p.  177  et  seq.  Also 
Boyd,  op.  cit. 

Many  of  Constantine's  laws,  but  by  no  means  all  that  are  extant,  are 
printed  in  Migne:  J.  P.,  Patrologiae  Cursus  Completus  Series  Latina 
viii,  cols.  93-400.  Most  of  the  extant  ones  have  been  preserved 
in  the  Theodosian  Code  and  the  Constitution  of  Sirmondi  printed  with 
it.  Many  not  found  elsewhere,  as  well  as  some  duplications,  are  given 
in  Eusebius'  Church  History  and  in  his  Life  of  Constantine.  Many 
of  these  latter,  however,  are  questioned,  cf.  infra,  pp.  38,  109.  Some 
laws  are  found  in  Augustine's  writings  against  the  Donatists,  and 
others  are  referred  to  by  Jerome  and  other  ecclesiastical  writers. 

Under  the  title  of  Legislation  I  have  included  rescripts  (rescripta)  as 
well  as  edicts  (edicta,  decreta).  Strictly  speaking,  rescripts  were 
answers  to  inquiries.  They  were  cited  as  decisions,  rather  than  as  leg- 
islation. Constantine  seems  to  have  begun  the  custom  of  issuing  laws 
in  rescript  form,  i.  e.,  in  letters  to  praefects.  Seeck  dates  the  custom 
from  December  i,  318.    Cf.  op.  cit.,  x,  pp.  199,  221. 

A  number  of  Constantine's  laws  bearing  on  Christianity  are  trans- 
lated in  Ayer,  J.  C,  Jr.,  A  Source  Book  tor  Ancient  Church  History 
(New  York,  1913),  pp.  263-265,  277-296. 

'  Cf.  Seeck,  Untergang  der  antiken  Welt,  i,  54. 

25]  25 


26  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [26 


pressed.  Decadence  of  legal  style  had  already  set  in  by 
his  time. 

The  laws  of  Constantine  show  a  progressively  favor- 
able attitude  toward  the  Christians.  None  of  his  legis- 
lation while  he  was  in  control  of  Gaul  and  Britain  alone 
has  come  down  to  us  except  references  to  his  religious 
toleration.  While  he  ruled  the  entire  West,  but  not  the 
East  (that  is,  from  his  victory  over  Maxentius  in  312  till 
his  victory  over  Licinius  in  323)  his  legislation  involved 
complete  toleration  towards  Christians,  and,  in  general, 
establishment  of  equality  between  Christianity  and 
paganism.  After  he  became  sole  emperor,  that  is  from 
324  to  his  death  in  337,  his  legislation  became  more 
definitely  Christian  and  anti-pagan.^  Seeck,  who  main- 
tains Constantine's  complete  adherence  to  Christianity 
after  312,  recognizes  this  distinction.^  A  somewhat 
detailed  analysis  of  the  two  periods,  312-323  and  323- 
336,  is  necessary  to  a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts. 

Before  the  final  victory  over  Licinius  (323)  we  have 
no  direct  legislation  against  essential  pagan  institutions. ^ 
Legislation  friendly  to  the  Christians,  however,  is  in 
evidence  from  the  time  of  the  victory  over  Maxentius 
(312).  Very  soon  after  that  event  Constantine  and 
Licinius,  doubtless  at  the  initiative  of  the  former,  reached 
an  agreement  at  Milan  to  establish  general  and  complete 
religious  toleration,  and  issued  a  comprehensive  edict  or 
rescript  to  that  effect,  specifically  putting  Christianity 

^  Cf.  Bury's  summary  of  Schiller's  description  of  Constantine's  laws 
in  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ed.  Bury,  vol.  ii, 
p.  567. 

*  He  ascribes  the  absence  of  a  more  positively  Christian  attitude  in 
the  earlier  legislation  to  motives  of  policy. 

'For  legislation  limiting  magic  and  the  consulting  of  haruspices,  cf. 
infra,  pp.  35-36. 


27] 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS 


27 


on  a  level  with  other  legal  religions.'  This  is  the  famous 
and  lately  controverted  Edict  of  Milan.  The  contro- 
versy was  begun  in  1891  by  O.  Seeck,  who  denied  that 
the  document  given  by  Lactantius  and  by  Eusebius  was 
in  any  respect  the  work  of  Constantine,  that  it  was 
issued  from  Milan,  or  that  it  was  an  imperial  edict. ^  He 
maintained  that  these  authors  gave  merely  copies  of  a 
rescript  issued  by  Licinius  after  his  victory  over  Maxi- 
minus  (or  Maximin)  Daza,  probably  as  soon  as  he 
entered  Nicomedia,  the  capital  of  the  first  conquered 
province,  reinstating  and  enforcing  the  Edict  of  Tolera- 
tion of  Galerius  (311)  which  Maximinus  had  not  ob- 
served. There  would  thus  be  only  one  edict  of  tolera- 
tion, that  putting  an  end  to  the  Diocletian  persecution  ; 
and  this  reissue  of  it  should  be  called  simply  the  Rescript 
of  Nicomedia.  Seeck  supported  his  opinion  by  argu- 
ments drawn  from  the  informality  of  the  so-called  edict, 
from  the  chronological  difficulty  involved  in  the  accepted 
account,  and  from  the  reference,  "  all  conditions  being 
entirely  left  out  which  were  contained  in  our  former 
letter,"  etc.  ("quare  scire  dignationem  tuam  convenit 
*  *  *  placuisse  nobis  ut  amotis  omnibus  omnino  con- 
ditionibus  *  *  *  contendant).  Seeck's  article  was  an- 
swered by  F.  Gorres  and  by  Crivelluci.^    The  former's 

'  Eusebius,  Church  History,  ix,  9.  12,  Our  knowledge  of  its  provis- 
ions is  obtained  from  two  documents,  Lactantius,  De  Mortibus  perse- 
cuiorum,  xlviii,  and  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  x,  5,  2-14.  Each  of  these  has 
its  champions  as  a  copy  of  the  original  rescript,  and  by  others  both  are 
denied  that  rank. 

'  "  Das  sogennante  Edikt  von  Mailand,  "  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchen- 
geschichte,  xii,  p.  381  et  seq.  In  his  later  Geschichte  des  Untergangs 
der  Antiken  Welt,  he  assumed  that  he  had  proved  his  point  and  merely 
remarked  in  a  note  that  he  had  not  spoken  of  the  Edict  of  Milan  because 
in  his  opinion  such  an  edict  never  existed.  Vol.  i  (Anhang),  p.  495. 
(Berlin,  1897). 

'The  former  in  Zeitsch.  f.  wissenschaftliche  Theol.,  xxxv  (1892),  pp. 
282-95;  the  latter  in  Studi  storici,  i,  p.  239  et  seq. 


28 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[28 


answer  consists  largely  of  ridicule  and  invective,  inter- 
spersed freely  v^ith  exclamation  points,  but  he  rightly 
emphasizes  the  obvious  fact  that  there  are  essential 
differences  between  the  Edict  of  Galerius  and  this  later 
edict  or  letter,  the  former  being  polytheistic  in  tone  and 
giving  bare  toleration  to  the  Christians,  whereas  the 
latter  is  rather  monotheistic  and  provides  for  a  large 
measure  of  general  religious  liberty  together  with  res- 
toration of  confiscated  Christian  property  to  its  former 
owners.  The  original  edict  of  Milan  he  thinks  has  been 
lost,  but  Eusebius  and  Lactantius  reproduce  it  in  giving 
respectively  a  translation  and  a  copy  of  rescripts  pub- 
lished by  Licinius  in  their  provinces.  The  latter  writer 
also  maintains  that  there  was  an  edict  of  Milan. 

The  ablest  discussion  of  the  question  is  that  by  Her- 
mann Hiille.'  He  accepts  an  edict  of  Milan  but  limits  it 
to  complete  religious  toleration  and  ascribes  the  policy 
of  restitution  of  Christian  property  to  later  rescripts, 
such  as  that  of  Constantine  to  Anulinus  in  Africa.  In 
his  opinion  Lactantius  probably  gives  a  rescript  issued 
afterwards  by  Licinius  for  Bithynia,  and  Eusebius,  a  later 
Palestinian  version  of  this,  both  being  amplifications  and 
extensions  of  the  brief  Milan  edict.  Valerian  Sesan  ^ 
argues  at  great  length  that  Eusebius  gives  a  Greek 
translation  of  the  original  rescript  of  Milan,  and  Lac- 
tantius a  form  of  it  issued  by  Licinius  from  Nikomedia. 
He  holds,  however,  the  untenable  ground  that  both 
allude  to  a  lost  edict  of  Constantine's  dating  from  312. 

Die  Toleranzerlasse  romischer  Kaiser  fur  das  Christentum,  (Berlin, 
1895),  pp.  80-106.  The  same  conclusions  are  reached  by  V.  Schultze  in 
the  articles  on  Constantine  in  the  Real-Enzyklopadie  fiir  protestantische 
Theologie  und  Kirche,  x,  7S7-773  (iQOi). 

^  Kirche  und  Staat  im  romisch-byzantinischen  Reiche  seit  Konstantin 
dent  Grosse7i  und  bis  zum  Falle  Konstantinopels,  vol.  i  (191 1),  pp. 
128-237. 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS 


Another  investigator,  Joseph  Wittig/  arrives  independ- 
ently at  the  same  general  conclusions  as  Sesan,  combat- 
ing, however,  the  assumption  of  a  lost  edict  of  312. 

The  meeting  of  Constantine  and  Licinius  at  Milan  in 
313  and  the  promulgation  there  of  an  edict  or  rescript  of 
religious  toleration  are  established  by  adequate  evidence 
beyond  reasonable  doubt.  Lactantius  undoubtedly  gives, 
according  to  his  own  statement,  not  this  original  edict, 
but  a  rescript  of  Licinius'  based  upon  it  and  issued  at 
Nicomedia.  I  cannot  see  in  the  arguments  of  Sesan  and 
Wittig  sufficient  reason  for  putting  Eusebius'  version 
upon  a  different  basis  from  that  of  Lactantius  and  call- 
ing it  a  translation  of  the  original  Milan  edict. ^  More 
probably  Eusebius  gave  the  version  of  the  rescript 
which  was  published  in  his  part  of  the  Empire.  How 
far  this  rescript  reproduces  the  edict  or  rescript  of  Milan 
it  is  impossible  to  say.  Hiille's  limitation  of  the  latter 
to  religious  toleration  seems  not  altogether  warranted. 
It  probably  not  only  ordered  the  recognition  of  Christi- 
anity on  exactly  the  same  standing  as  to  toleration  as 
that  of  the  established  religions,  and  not  only  involved 

'  "  Das  Toleranzreskript  von  Mailand  313,"  in  Konstantin  der  Grosse 
und  seine  Zeit,  ed.  Franz  J.  Dolger  (1913),  pp.  40-65. 

*Wittig's  comparison  of  differences  between  the  texts  is  specious 
rather  than  convincing.  E.g.,  where  Eusebius  is  briefer,  this  proves 
his  form  to  be  the  original ;  where  he  is  lengthier,  this  proves  that 
Lactantius  condensed.  Where  Lactantius  represents  Licinius  as  using 
phrases  less  vaguely  monotheistic  and  more  specifically  Christian  than 
Eusebius  gives,  this  shows  that  Licinius,  not  being  a  Christian  {cf.  Eu- 
sebius X,  5,4-5,  and  Lactantius  xlviii,4-5),  was  eager  to  proclaim  his  vol- 
untary recognition  of  Constantine's  god,  so  as  to  avoid  the  reproach  of 
being  overborn  by  Constantine  !  The  omission  of  an  introductory  sec- 
tion in  Lactantius  and  of  the  possessive  pronoun  where  Eusebius'  ver- 
sion cites  former  orders  as  "our  former  letters  "  maybe  significant  but 
furnishes  no  argument  for  Wittig's  position  {cf.  Eusebius  x,  5,  2-3, 
omitted  in  Lactantius ;  cf.  Eusebius,  §  6  and  Lactantius,  §  6) . 


30  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [30 

the  principle  of  religious  liberty,  but  also  directed 
the  restoration  of  church  property  which  had  been 
confiscated  from  the  Christians.^  The  rescript  given 
by  Lactantius  differs  in  a  number  of  places  from 
the  translation  given  by  Eusebius,  but  both  are  mono- 
theistic in  tone,  the  latter  rather  more  vaguely  so  than 
the  former.  What  could  be  more  vague  than  the  phrase 
quoted  by  Eusebius,  "  that  so  whatever  divine  and 
heavenly   power  there  is  may   be  propitious    to  us " 

(byrug  b  t'l  -nore  zarL  OeioTTjrog  Kai  ovpav'iov  Trpdyjuarog,  Tjulv  ....  evuevkg  elvci 

dvvr/Hri,  for  Lactautius'  quo  quidem  divinitas  in  sede 
coelesti  nobis  .  .  .  propitia  possit  existere")?^  Both 
versions  concur  in  ascribing  the  previous  success  of  the 
rulers  to  divine  aid  and  in  assigning  as  the  motive  of 
the  law  desire  for  continuance  of  divine  favor.  "  So 
shall  that  divine  favor  which,  in  affairs  of  the  mightiest 
importance,  we  have  already  experienced,  continue  to 
give  success  to  us,  and  in  our  successes  make  the  com- 
monwealth happy.  "3  These  may  well  have  characterized 
the  original  edict  or  rescript  and  have  represented  Con- 
stantine's  religious  status  in  313,  for  his  influence,  rather 
than  that  of  Licinius,  must  in  this  have  been  dominant. 

The  policies  of  complete  religious  toleration  and  of  the 
restoration  to  Christians  of  their  property  formerly  con- 
fiscated were  in  any  case  adopted  by  Constantine  soon 
after  he  became  sole  emperor  in  the  west.  Eusebius 
places  immediately  after  the  rescript  discussed  above,  a 
rescript  to  Anulinus  in  Africa,  ordering  the  immediate 
restoration  to  the  Catholic  church  of  all  property  which 
had  been  confiscated  from  it.'^    This  rescript  makes  no 

'  Cf.  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  14. 

^Eusebius,  Church  History  x,  5,  4.    Lactantius,  op.  cii.,  xlviii,  4. 

*  Eusebius,  op.  cii.,  x,  5,  13.    Cf.  Lactantius,  op.  cii.,  xlviii,  13. 

*  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  x,  5,  15-17. 


31  ]  CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS  31 

provision  for  the  compensation  of  the  purchasers  and 
holders  of  this  property,  whereas  both  the  Eusebian  and 
the  Lactantian  version  of  the  rescript  of  Licinius  pro- 
vide for  the  compensation  from  the  pubhc  treasury  of  legal 
holders  of  confiscated  Christian  property.  The  rescript 
to  Anulinus  is  generally  supposed  to  have  been  issued 
after  the  edict  of  Milan,  but  VVittig  argues  plausibly  that 
it  antedated  the  latter  and  represents  a  less  matured  plan 
of  dealing  with  the  problem/  If  so,  whether  at  Milan 
or  elsewhere,  Constantine  soon  provided  for  reimburs- 
ing the  losers,  for  he  was  always  very  free  with  public 
moneys. 

Among  the  laws  which  Constantine  issued  between  313 
and  323  in  favor  of  the  church,  beyond  complete  tolera- 
tion, the  following  may  be  noted. 

The  clergy  were  exempted  from  all  state  contributions. ' 
How  substantial  this  concession  was  may  be  seen  from 
the  rush  which  ensued  toward  the  clerical  status.  It 
was  so  great  that  by  320  another  edict  was  issued  limiting 
entrance  to  the  clergy  to  those  classes  whose  exemption 
would  not  make  much  difference  either  to  the  state  or  to 
themselves.  This  was  not  retroactive  and  did  not  dis- 
turb those  who  were  already  clerics.  ^  Great  as  was  the 
concession  however,  it  was  not  an  exaltation  of  Christi- 
anity above  other  religions,  for  such  exemptions  were 
commonly  made  to  priests  of  acknowledged  religions. 

^  Op.  cit.,  pp.  51,  52. 

^  Codex  Theodosianus ,  xvi,2,2(3i9) .  ' '  Qui  clivino  cultui  ministeria  re- 
ligionis  impendunt,  id  est  hi,  qui  clerici  appelantur,  ab  omnibus  omnino 
muneribus  excusentur,  ne  sacrilego  livore  quorundam  a  divinis  obsequiis 
avocentur. "  Cf.  earlier  letter  of  Constantine's  instructing  Anulinus  to 
exempt  the  clergy  of  the  Catholic  church,  over  which  Csecilian  pre- 
sided, from  public  duties.    Eusebius,  Church  History,  x,  7. 

*Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  2,  3.  (326) 


i 


32  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [32 

Constantine  himself  extended  substantially  the  same  ex- 
emptions to  the  patriarchs  and  elders  of  the  Jews,  to 
whom  in  general  he  was  not  friendly. ' 

A  law  published  soon  after  the  victory  over  Maxentius 
shows  Constantine  to  be  interested  in  protecting  the 
machinery  and  the  routine  of  church  life  from  annoyance 
at  the  hands  of  heretics,  but  more  than  a  friendly  inter- 
est of  this  sort  can  hardly  be  inferred  from  it.  ^ 

In  313  (or  315)  the  church  was  freed  from  ''annona" 
and  "tributum."  In  320  the  laws  from  the  time  of 
Augustus,  disqualifying  those  not  of  near  kinship  who 
remained  unmarried  or  childless  from  receiving  inher- 
itances, were  changed,  probably  in  deference  to  the  celi- 
bacy of  the  clergy,  allowing  celibates  to  inherit  and  re- 
leasing them  from  all  penalties. ^  In  321  manumission  in 
churches  in  the  presence  of  the  bishop  and  clergy  was 
made  legal  and  valid. ^  In  321  wills  in  favor  of  the  Cath- 
olic church  were  permitted.  ^ 

Constantine's  laws  on  Sunday  are  of  great  interest. 
In  321  he  raised  it  to  the  rank  of  the  old  pagan  holidays 
(feriae)  by  suspending  the  work  of  the  courts  and  of  the 

^  Cod.  Theod.  xvi,  8,  2  (a.  330,  Nov.  29)  and  4  (Dec.  i,  331). 
Cod.  Theod.  y.N'\,  2,  i  (313  (?)  Oct.  31).  "  Haereticorum  factione 
conperimus  ecclesiae  catholicae  clericos  ita  vexari,  ut  nominationibus 
seu  susceptionibus  aliquibus,  quas  publicus  mos  exposcit,  contra  indulta 
sibi  privilegia  praegraventur.  Ideoque  placet,  si  quern  tua  gravitas  in- 
venerit  ita  vexattim,  eidem  alium  subrogare  et  deinceps  a  supra  dictae 
religionis  hominibus  hujusmodi  injurias  prohiberi.  " 

^  Cod.  Theod.  xi,  i,  i  (June  17,  315)  :  viii,  16,  i  (Jan.  31,  320)  ; 
Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  26. 

^  Cod.  Theod.  iv,  7,  i,  cf.  Codex  Justinianus,  i,  13,  2. 

^  Cod.  Theod.  yLYi,  2,  4  {221) .  "  habeat  unusquisque  licentiam  sanctis- 
simo  catholicae  [ecclesiae]  venerabilique  concilio,  decedens  bonorum 
quod  optavit  relinquere,"  etc.  This  recognizes  the  corporate  character 
of  the  church. 


CONSTANTIXE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS 


city  population  on  that  day,  agricultural  work,  as  was 
usual,  being  expressly  excepted. ' 

In  June,  of  the  same  year,  Constantine  published  an 
amendment  to  the  law,  keeping  the  way  open  for  the 
manumission  of  slaves  on  Sunday.^ 

These  laws  are  not  positively  Christian  or  pagan,  nor  are 
they  necessarily  ambiguous  as  to  the  emperor's  religious 
position.  The  worship  of  the  sun,  "sol  invictus,''  and 
the  observance  of  Sunday  were  integral  parts  of  Mithra- 
ism  and  the  religion  of  the  Great  Mother  generally.  The 
laws,  therefore,  might  have  been  issued  by  a  worshipper 
of  the  sun.  The  designation  of  the  day  as  the  venerable 
day  of  the  sun,  venerabili  die  Solis''  and  ''diem  solis 
veneratione  sui  celebrem^'^  has  sometimes  been  cited  as 
proof  of  Constantine's  seeking  at  the  time  to  do  honor 
to  Mithras,  or  the  sun.  Such  phrases,  however,  were 
common  to  Christians  as  well  as  to  pagans.  The  orien- 
tal, probably  at  first  Babylonian,  system  of  a  week  of 
seven  days,  each  named  from  a  heavenly  body,  had  very 
generally  supplemented  and  even  supplanted  in  popular 

^  Cod.  Just,  iii,  12,  3.  "  Omnes  judices,  urbanaeque  plebes,  et 
cunctarum  artium  officia  venerabili  die  Solis  quiescant.  Ruri  tamen 
positi  agrorum  culturae  libere  licenterque  inserviant :  quoniam  frequen- 
ter evenit,  ut  non  aptius  alio  die  frumenta  sulcis,  aut  vineae  scrobibus 
mandentur,  ne  occasione  momenti  pereat  commoditas  coelesti  provisi- 
one  concessa."  It  is  surprising  that  this  law  is  not  embodied  in 
the  Cod.  Theod,,  as  it  is  presupposed  by  the  law  of  Constantine 
in  Cod.  Theod.  ii,  8,  i.  It  may  have  been  included  and  have  been 
lost  in  the  copies  handed  down  to  us.  The  supposition  that  it  originallj'' 
included  non-Christian  terms  and  was  an  expression  of  sun-worship 
and  was  therefore  omitted  from  the  Cod.  Theod.  occurs  to  one,  but  is 
without  any  support  whatever. 

^  Cod.  Theod.  ii,  8,  i.  Sicut  indignissimum  videbatur  diem  solis 
veneratione  sui  celebrem  altercantibus  jurgiis  et  noxiis  partium  conten- 
tionibus  occupari,  ita  gratum  ac  jucudum  est  eo  die  quae  sunt  maxima 
votiva  compleri.  Atque  ideo  emancipandi  et  manumittendi  die  festo 
cuncti  licentiam  habeant  et  super  his  rebus  acta  non  prohibeantur." 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


use  the  cumbersome  Roman  numbering  of  days  by  kal- 
ends, nones  and  ides,  long  before  this  time.'  Justin 
Martyr  at  Rome,  in  the  second  century,  used  the  phrase, 
"  day  of  the  sun  "  in  describing  the  worship  of  the  Chris- 
tians on  the  first  day  of  the  week.^  Tertullian  in  North 
Africa  used  it  {dies  salts)  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that 
it  was  commonly  employed  at  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury.3  No  doubt  the  correct,  specifically  Christian  usage 
was  to  refer  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Lord's 
Day  {dies  Domini  or  dies  dominicus) ,  a  usage  still  preva- 
lent in  religious  speech ;  but  the  name  of  the  sun  was 
used  very  generally  by  the  Christians  for  the  first  day  of 
the  week  even  though  this  heavenly  body  was  a  universal 
object  of  adoration  among  the  heathen.  Assuming  that 
Constantine  was  a  thoroughgoing  Christian  in  321,  he 
would  probably  have  proclaimed  the  day  under  the  name 
of  "  dies  solis'^ 

The  words  venerabilV^  and  veneratione  sui  cele- 
brem  "  might  be  construed  as  savoring  of  sun-worship, 
but  they  may  refer  as  well  to  the  worship  which  from  a 
very  early  time  characterized  the  Christian  observance 
of  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The  second  law  with  its 
emphatic  approval  of,  and  provision  for  manumission  of 
slaves,  certainly  gives  the  whole  piece  of  legislation 
the  atmosphere  of  Christianity  rather  than  of  Mithraism. 

'  Cf.  Zahn  :  Geschichte  des  Sonntags,  pp.  25,  26,  60,  61  ;  Mommsen, 
Ueber  den  Chronographer  von  354,  pp.  566,  568 ;  Dio  Cassius  37,  19. 
In  various  European  languages  the  days  of  the  week  still  perpetuate 
this  oriental  influence  upon  the  West  through  Rome,  though  German 
gods  and  Christian  sentiment  have  wrought  some  changes.  The  names 
of  the  days  originally  commemorated  were,  in  order:  Sun,  Moon,  Mars, 
Mercury,  Jupiter,  Venus,  and  Saturn. 

"^Apology  i,  67.    The  phrase  is  used  twice  here. 

^  Apology,  xvi ;  ad  Nationes,  i,  13. 


35] 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS 


35 


Eusebius,  in  his  Life  of  Constantine,^  gives  a  long  list  of 
provisions  enacted  by  Constantine  for  the  most  pious 
observance  of  Sunday,  which  are  there  given  as  spe- 
cifically Christian,  though  the  prayer  which  he  says  was 
enforced  on  that  day  in  the  army  was  merely  monothe- 
istic. x\llowing  for  the  edifying  and  eulogistic  tone  of 
this  source,  it  seems  more  probable  that  Eusebius  at 
most  exaggerated  the  piety  of  the  emperor  than  that  he 
entirely  distorted  the  object  of  that  piety,  and  while  much 
of  the  passage  refers  to  the  latter  part  of  Constantine's 
reign,  it  unquestionably  includes  a  summary  of  his  first 
law  on  Sunday.  Taken  in  connection  with  this  and  other 
evidence  these  laws  seem  to  have  been  issued  with  espe- 
cial regard  for  the  Christians. 

Constantine's  laws  on  the  subject  of  magic  and  divina- 
tion, mostly  in  this  period  of  his  legislation  (312-323), 
give  no  decisive  indication  of  his  relation  to  Christianity. 
They  show  indeed  his  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  these  prac- 
tices.^ It  was  only  the  private  consulting  of  haruspices 
and  the  practice  of  magic  arts  against  chastity  or  life,  or 
for  other  harmful  purposes  that  were  forbidden. 3  Rites 

'  iv,  18-20. 

^  Cf.  Cod.  Theod.  ix,  16,  3  (May  23,  321-324).  The  law  of  Dec.  17, 
320-321,  Cod.  Theod.  xvi,  10,  i,  permits  and  even  in  some  circum- 
stances encourages  the  public  consultation  of  haruspices.  "  Si  quid  de 
palatio  nostro  aut  ceteris  operibus  publicis  degustatum  fulgore  esse  con- 
stiterit,  retento  more  veteris  observantiae  quid  portendat,  ab  haruspicibus 
requiratur  et  diligentissime  scribtura  collecta  ad  nostram  scientiam 
referatur  ;  ceteris  etiam  usurpandae  hujus  consuetudinis  licentia  trib- 
uenda,  dummodo  sacrificiis  domesticis  abstineant,  quae  specialiter  pro- 
hibita  sunt.  Earn  autem  denuntiationem  adque  interpretationem,  quae 
de  tactu  amphitheatri  scribta  est,  de  qua  ad  Heraclianum  tribunum  et 
magistrum  officiorum  scribseras,ad  nos.  scias  esse  perlatam.  "  Cod. 
Theod.  ix,  16,  3,  shows  belief  that  charms  could  affect  the  weather  for 
the  public  benefit. 

^  Cod.  Theod.  ix,  16,  i,  2  and  3  ;  xvi,  10,  i. 


36 


CONSTANTINB  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[36 


whose  object  was  to  prevent  disease  and  drought  were 
not  prohibited.' 

But  permission  and  even  encouragement  of  superstitious 
rites  for  certain  extraordinary  occurrences  do  not  show 
devotion  to  pagan  reHgions  and  absence  of  any  connec- 
tion with  Christianity  as  some  writers  on  Constantine 
have  inferred.    If  they  did,  a  large  portion  of  the  church 

'  Boyd  :  op.  ciL,  p.  19  misses  the  mark  when  he  says  "  As  his  pane- 
gyrist declares  that  Constantine  fought  Maxentius  against  the  coun- 
sel of  men,  against  the  advice  of  the  haruspices,  this  legislation  [refer- 
ring especially  to  commands  to  collect  and  transmit  to  court  the  replies 
of  the  haruspices]  does  not  signify  a  belief  in  the  divinatory  arts,  rather 
an  effort  to  forestall  any  attempt  to  make  use  of  divination  in  any  po- 
litical conspiracy  against  the  fortunes  of  the  Flavian  family."  The 
Anonymous  panegyric  (313)  referred  to  (Migne  :  P  .L.,  viii  col.  655,  c. 
ii),  in  its  "  contra  haruspicum  monita  "  implies  rather  that  Constantine 
consulted  the  augurs,  but  was  not  discouraged  by  an  unfavorable  answer, 
and  the  direction  of  the  law  in  cases  of  public  buildings  struck  by  light- 
ning, "  retento  more  veteris  observantise,  quis  portendat,  ab  haruspici- 
bus  requiretur  "  etc.,  refer  to  the  observance  of  accepted  practises.  Be- 
lief in  the  power  of  such  practises  was  common  among  the  Christians 
themselves:  they  merely  asserted  the  superior  magical  power  of  Chris- 
tian observances.    Cf.  Lactantius,  de  Mort.  Pers.  chap.  x. 

It  is  barely  possible  that  there  may  be  a  connection  between  the  burn- 
ing of  Diocletian's  palace,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Diocletian  persecu- 
tion, and  Constanti ne's  law  in  321  {Cod.  Theod.  xvi,  10,  i).  Lactantius 
it  will  be  remembered  {de  Mort.  Pers.  cxiv)  says  that  Galerius  hired 
emissaries  to  set  the  palace  on  fire  and  then  laid  the  blame  on  the 
Christians  as  public  enemies.  In  the  Easter  "  Oration  of  Constantine 
to  the  Assembly  of  the  Saints''  reproduced  by  Eusebius,  Constantine  is 
reported  as  saying  (chap.  25)  that  he  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  occur- 
ence, that  the  palace  was  consum.ed  by  lightning,  and  that  Diocletian 
lived  in  constant  fear  of  lightning.  For  an  interesting  note  upon  the 
beginning  of  the  Diocletian  persecution,  which  still  remains  obscure, 
see  McGiffert  in  the  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Series  ii,  Vol- 
ume i  Eusebius,  pp.  397-400.  If,  as  Professor  McGiffert  suggests,  there 
was  a  Christian  conspiracy  against  Galerius,  this  might  establish  a 
connection  in  Constantine's  mind  between  lightning,  haruspices,  and 
plots  such  as  Dr.  Boyd  assumes.  Otherwise,  Constantine  may  have 
thought  that  as  the  Christian  God  sent  lightning  against  Diocletian  the 
pagan  deities  or  demons  might  send  lightning  against  him. 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS 


37 


would,  in  many  different  ages,  have  to  be  counted  out  of 
Christendom. 

Judging  from  Constantine's  legislation  in  the  west 
discussed  thus  far,  the  inference  would  naturally  be  that 
he  was  friendly  disposed  toward  Christianity,  and  sought 
to  put  it  upon  a  full  equality  with  former  official  religions 
of  the  empire.  There  was  no  effort  to  suppress  pagan- 
ism, or  even  to  make  Christianity  the  one  legal  religion 
of  the  empire.' 

But  with  his  final  conflict  with  Licinius  and  his  victory 
in  323,^  Constantine's  legislation  seems  to  become  more 
specifically  and  completely  Christian.  A  law  of  323  ex- 
pressly forbade  any  attempt  to  force  Christians  to  take 
part  in  pagan  celebrations  and  gave  redress  for  abuses  of 
this  sort. 3 

Several  general  statements  of  the  greatest  importance, 
chiefly  covering  the  period  323-336,  have  come  down  to 
us  from  approximately  Constantine's  time,  which  if  they 
could  be  accepted  in  full  would  leave  no  question  but 
that  Constantine  accomplished  a  legal  revolution,  en- 
tirely substituting  Christianity  for  paganism  in  Roman 
life.    One,  a  law  of  Emperor  Constans  in  341, in  pro- 

'  For  a  general  summary  of  Constantine's  laws  in  force  in  the  west 
before  the  victory  over  Licinius  and  put  in  operation  in  the  east  at  that 
time,  from  the  pen  of  a  Christian  panegyrist,  see  Eusebius,  Life  of 
Constantine,  ii,  20  and  21. 

2  Or  324,  according  to  Seeck. 

'  "  Quoniam  comperimus  quosdam  ecclesiasticos  et  ceteros  catholicae 
sectae  servientes  a  diversarum  religionum  hominibus  ad  lustrorum  sac- 
rificia  celebranda  compelli,  hac  sanctione  sancimus,  si  quis  ad  ritum 
alienae  superstitionis  cogendos  esse  crediderit  eos,  qui  sanctissimae  legi 
serviunt,  si  conditio  patiatur,  publice  fustibus  verberetur,  si  vero  hon- 
oris ratio  talem  ab  eo  repellat  injuriam,  condemnationem  sustineat 
damni  gravissimi,  quod  rebus  publicis  vindicabitur."  Cod.  Theod.,  xvi, 
2,  5  (May  25,  323[?]). 

^Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  10,  2.    "  Cesset  superstitio,  sacrificiorum  abo- 


38  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [38 

hibiting  sacrifices  to  the  gods  implies  that  Constantine 
had  earlier  made  the  same  sweeping  prohibition.  If 
such  an  edict  was  issued,  however,  it  has  been  lost. 
Jerome'  tells  of  a  law  for  the  general  destruction  of 
pagan  temples.  This,  too,  if  issued,  has  been  entirely 
lost.  Eusebius  refers  to  many  laws,  which,  if  his  state- 
ments are  correct  and  his  quotations  genuine,  would 
have  put  a  legal  end  to  many  essential  features  of  pagan- 
ism.^ Victor  Schultze^  has  ably  defended  these  particu- 
lar summaries  of  Constantine's  laws,  but  they  cannot  be 
taken  as  conclusive,  in  view  of  Eusebius'  probable  exag- 
gerations about  laws  which  have  been  preserved  as  well 
as  in  view  of  the  general  character  of  his  Li/e  of  Con- 
stantine. Even  the  combined  testimony  of  Constans' 
law,  Jerome,  and  Eusebius  cannot  be  accepted  as  final. 
It  is  contradicted  by  Libanius,^  who  goes  so  far  as  to 
say  that  Constantine  did  not  at  all  change  the  legal  re- 
ligion ;  by  Zosimus,^  who  says  that  Constantine  tolerated 
heathen  worship ;  by  later  exhortations  of  Christians 
asking  for  such  laws ;  ^  and  by  laws  expressly  allowing 

leatur  insania.    Nam  quicumque  contra  legem  divi  principis  parentis 
nostri  et  hanc  nostrae  mansuetudinis  jussionem  ausus  fuerit  sacrificia 
celebrare,  conpetens  in  eum  vindicta  et  praesens  sententia  exeratur." 
^  Chronicle,  under  year  335. 

"^Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine,  2;  8;  9.  Life  of  Constantine,  ii, 
44;  45;  iii,  55-58;  iv,  23;  25. 

'In  Zeitsch  f.  K.  G.,  vii  (1885),  p.  369  et  seq. 

*  Cf.  Life  of  Constantine ,  iv,  18,  with  Constantine's  actual  law,  Cod. 
Theod.,  ii,  8,  1,  and  Cod.  Just.,  iii,  12,  3;  see  above,  p.  77.  For  in- 
stances, however,  in  which  Eusebius'  statements  are  confirmed  by  the 
laws  which  have  come  down  to  us,  cf.  Cod.  Theod.,  viii,  16,  i,  with 
Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  26;  Cod.  Theod.,  iv,  4,  3,  and  ii,  24,  i,  and  iv, 
4,  I,  with  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  26,  5. 

'"Pro  Templis,  ed.  Reiske  (1784). 

^ Roman  History,  ii,  29,  3. 

^Eg.,  Firmianus,  de  Errore,  p.  39. 


39] 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS 


39 


divination  in  the  pagan  temples/  These  last  may,  of 
course,  have  been  abrogated  by  later  laws  such  as 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  claim  were  issued,  but  there  is  no 
proof  of  it  other  than  the  partisan  statements  of  those 
writers. 

It  seems  clear,  however,  that  though  Constantine's 
later  laws  may  not  have  gone  to  the  extent  assumed  by 
Eusebius,  Constans  and  Jerome,  they  show  at  least  an 
anti-pagan  tendency,  in  the  light  of  which  the  statements 
of  these  three  authorities  must  be  interpreted  as,  at 
most,  exaggerations  and  not  utter  misstatements.  There 
seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  heathen  temples  suffered 
severely  from  adverse  imperial  influence ;  ^  and  as  early 
as  326,  in  a  law  looking  toward  the  completion  of  old 
buildings  before  new  ones  were  begun,  it  was  expressly 
provided  that  temples  might  be  left  unfinished.^ 

Several  long  and  rhetorical  edicts  of  Constantine, 
notably  the  "  Edict  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Province  of 
Palestine,"  and  the  "  Edict  to  the  People  of  the  Provinces 
concerning  the  Error  of  Polytheism"  are  given  in  Euse- 
bius' Life  of  Constantine,   both  purporting  to  be  from 

^  Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  10,  i  (321);  ix,  16,  2  and  3  (319). 
'  C/.  infra,  pp.  63-64. 

^Cod.  Theod.,  xv,  i,  3  (326  [362]  June  29).  "  Provinciarum  judices 
commoneri  praecipimus,  ut  nihil  se  novi  operis  ordinare  ante  debere 
cognoscant,  quam  ea  compleverint,  quae  a  decessoribus  inchoata  sunt, 
exceptis  dumtaxat  templorum  aedificationibus." 

*ii,  24-42,  and  ii,  48-60,  respectively.  These  with  the  other  docu- 
ments in  this  work  were  labeled  forgeries  by  Crivellucci,  Mommsen, 
Peter,  Burckhardt,  Seeck  and  others:  Seeck  later  accepted  them  as 
genuine,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  they  are  documents  which  would 
naturally  be  in  Eusebius'  chancery,  and  with  the  specific  form  of  ad- 
dress which  one  would  expect  in  copies  sent  to  Caesarea  in  Palestine. 
Zeiisch.  f.  K.  G.,  xviii,  (1898)  p.  321  et  seq.  They  are  held  by  Schultze: 
Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  xiv  (1894),  p.  527  et  seq.,  to  be  forgeries  by  a  later 
hand  than  Eusebius',  largely  because  (i)  the  former  does  not  correspond 


40 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


authentic  copies,  the  former  with  the  emperor's  signa- 
ture and  the  latter  entirely  in  his  own  handwriting".  If 
these  are  genuine  they  show  that  Constantine  was  at 
this  time '  a  most  zealous  Christian,  filled  with  mission- 
ary zeal,  but  determined  not  to  use  legal  force  in  the 
conversion  of  pagans. 

Many  laws  were  undoubtedly  issued  after  323  con- 
ferring special  privileges  upon  Christian  churches  and 
Christian  priests.^  From  all  these  special  privileges 
heretics  were  expressly  debarred.^    Cities  which  became 

with  what  one  would  expect  it  to  be  from  the  context,  ii,  20-23;  (2)  the 
latter  misstates  Constantine's  age  (Constantine  says  he  was  a  boy,  i.  e. 
under  14,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Diocletian  persecution  in  303,  which 
in  spite  of  Seeck's  contrary  opinion  seems  impossible,  cf.  Eusebius, 
op.  cit.,  ii,  51;  i,  8,  i;  (3)  both  contain  many  improbabilities,  contra- 
dicting other  information  and  other  parts  of  Eusebius'  writings;  (4) 
both  are  of  a  nature  and  style  foreign  to  imperial  decrees.  It  is  hard 
to  see  how  they  can  safely  be  used  as  authoritative  documents. 
^  After  his  victory  over  Licinius. 

^ "  Neque  vulgari  consensu  neque  quibuslibet  petentibus  sub  specie 
clericorum  a  numeribus  publicis  vacatio  deferatur,  nec  temere  et  citra 
modum  populi  clericis  connectantur,  sed  cum  defunctus  fuerit  clericus, 
ad  vicem  defuncti  alius  allegetur,  cui  nulla  ex  municipibus  prosapia 
fuerit  neque  ea  est  opulentia  facultatum,  quae  publicas  functiones  facil- 
lime  queat  tolerare,  ita  ut,  si  inter  civitatem  et  clericos  super  alicujus 
nomine  dubitetur,  si  eum  aequitas  ad  publica  trahat  obsequia,  et  pro- 
genie  municeps  vel  patrimonio  idoneus  dinoscetur,  exemptus  clericis 
civitati  tradatur.  Opulentos  enim  saeculi  subire  necessitates  oportet, 
pauperes  ecclesiarum  divitiis  sustentari."  Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  2,  6  (June 
I,  326). 

"  Lectores  divinorum  apicum  et  hypodiacone  ceterique  clerici,  qui 
per  injuriam  haereticorum  ad  curiam  devocati  sunt,  absolvantur  et  de 
cetero  ad  similitudinem  Orientis  minime  ad  curias  devocentur,  sed  im- 
munitate  plenissima  potiantur."    Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  2,  7  (Feb.  5,  330). 

"  Privilegia,  quae  contemplatione  religionis  indulta  sunt,  catholicae 
tantum  legis  observationibus  prodesse  oportet.  Haereticos  autem  atque 
schismaticos  non  solum  ab  his  privilegiis  alienos  esse  volumus,  sed 
etiam  diversis  muneribus  constringi  et  subjici."  Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  5,  i 
(Sept.  I,  326). 


41] 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS 


41 


exclusively  Christian  were  granted  special  imperial 
favors.' 

A  law  of  326,  or  about  that  year,  conferred  remarkable 
civil  functions  on  the  church  organization,  and  marks 
one  of  the  most  important  of  the  steps  by  which,  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  it  came  to  dominate  and  overshadow  the 
state.  Litigants  were  allowed  to  bring  suits  before 
bishops  and  even  to  transfer  them  thither  from  the  civil 
judges.  The  decision  of  the  bishop  was  to  be  recognized 
by  government  officials  as  legal  and  binding.  The  law 
thus  made  the  bishop  a  final  court,  open  apparently  to 
any  one,  whether  Christian  or  not,  who  chose  to  cite  his 
opponent  before  him.  It  not  only  gave  legal  authority 
to  the  judgment  which  ecclesiastical  authorities  might 
pronounce  in  quarrels  between  Christians,  quarrels  which, 
from  the  days  of  St.  Paul  they  had  been  urged  to  keep 
within  the  church  so  as  to  avoid  the  scandal  of  suits  in 
pagan  courts,  ^  but  it  went  far  beyond  that.  It  created 
episcopal  courts  with  far-reaching  powers,  parallel  to,  and 
independent  of,  the  secular  courts.  It  was  a  recognition 
of  the  church,  fraught  with  tremendous  consequences  for 
the  future.  3 

"  Novatianos  non  adeo  comperimus  praedamnatos,  ut  his  quae  petive- 
runt  crederemus  minime  largienda.  Itaque  ecclesiae  suae  domos  et 
loca  sepulcris  apta  sine  inquietudine  eos  firmiter  possidere  praecipimus, 
ea  scilicet,  quae  ex  diuturno  tempore  vel  ex  empto  habuerunt  vel  quali- 
bet  quaesiverunt  ratione.  Sane  providendum  erit,  ne  quid  sibi  usurpare 
conentur  ex  his,  quae  ante  discidium  ad  ecclesiae  perpetuae  sanctitatis 
pertinuisse  manifestum  est."    Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  5,  2  (Sept.  25,  326). 

^  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  iii,  7000.  Cf.  Eusebius,  Life  of 
Cofistantine,  iv,  37-39. 

^  I  Cor.,  vi,  I  -7. 

* ' '  Judex  pro  sua  sollicitudine  observare  debebit,  ut,  si  ad  episcopale 
judicium  provocetur,  silentium  accomodetur  et,  si  quis  ad  legem  Chris- 
tianam  negotium  transferre  voluerit  et  illud  judicium  observare,  audia- 
tur,  etiamsi  negotium  apud  judicem  sit  inchoatum,  et  pro  Sanctis 


42 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[42 


A  considerable  body  of  humanitarian  legislation  shows 
probably  an  increasing  Christian  influence  upon  Con- 
stantine/  In  his  earlier  rule  in  Gaul,  though  he  was 
extolled  by  his  heathen  panegyrist,  Eumenius,^  as  one  so 

habeatur,  quidquid  ab  his  fuerit  judicatum:  ita  tamen,  ne  usu.rpetur  in 
eo,  ut  untis  ex  litigantibus  pergat  ad  supra  dictum  auditorium  et  arbit- 
rium  suum  enuntiet.  Judex  enim  praesentis  causae  integre  habere 
debet  arbitrium,  ut  omnibus  accept©  latis  pronuntiet."  Cod.  Theod.,  i, 
27,  I  (June  23,  *  *  This  law  of  Constantine's,  though  the  absence 
of  one  of  the  consuls'  names  leads  to  the  year  being  omitted  in  the  edi- 
tion of  Mommsen  and  Meyer,  must  have  been  issued  about  326,  as  it  is 
dated  at  Constantinople,  and  Crispus  was  one  of  the  consuls.  The 
building  of  Constantinople  could  hardly  have  been  begun  much  before 
this,  and  Crispus  was  executed  that  year. 

Cf.  also  Constitutiones  Sirmondianae  for  law  of  May  5,  333.  "  *  *  ^ 
Itaque  quia  a  nobis  instrui  voluisti,  olim.  proniulgatae  legis  ordinem 
salubri  rursus  imperio  propagamus.  Sanximus  namque,  sicut  edicti 
nostri  forma  declarat,  sententias  episcoporum  quolibet  genere  latas  sine 
aliqua  aetatis  discretione  inviolatas  semper  incorruptasque  servari; 
scilicet  ut  pro  Sanctis  semper  ac  venerabilibus  habeantur,  quidquid 
episcoporum  fuerit  sententia  terminatum.  Sive  itaque  inter  minores 
sive  inter  majores  ab  episcopis  fuerit  judicatum,  apud  vos,  qui  judici- 
orum  summam  tenetis,  et  apud  ceteros  omnes  judices  ad  exsecutionem. 
volumus  pertinere.  Quicumque  itaque  litem  habens,  sive  possessor 
sive  petitor  vel  inter  initia  litis  vel  decursis  temporum  curriculis,  sive 
cum  negotium  peroratur,  sive  cum  jam  coeperit  promi  sententia,  judi- 
cium elegerit  sacrosanctae  legis  antistitis,  ilico  sine  aliqua  dubitatione, 
etiamsi  alia  pars  refragatur,  ad  episcopum  personae  litigantium  dirigan- 
tur.  Multa  enim,  quae  in  judicio  captiosa  praescriptionis  vincula  promi 
non  patiuntur,  investigat  et  publicat  sacrosanctae  religionis  auctoritas. 
Omnes  itaque  causae,  quae  vel  praetorio  jure  vel  civili  tractantur,  epis- 
coporum sententius  terminatae  perpetuo  stabilitatis  jure  firmentur,  nec 
liceat  ulterius  retractari  negotium,  quod  episcoporum  sententia  deci- 
derit.  Testimonium  etiam  ab  uno  licet  episcopo  perhibitum  omnis 
judex  indubitanter  accipiat  nec  alius  audiatur  testis,  cum  testimonium 
episcopi  a  qualibet  parte  fuerit  repromissum,"  etc.  Cod.  Theod.,  ed., 
Mommsen  and  Meyer,  vol.  i,  part  2,  pp.  907-908. 

^  For  other  contributing  factors,  cf.  A.  C.  McGifTert,  "  The  Influence 
of  Christianity  on  the  Roman  Empire,"  Harvard  Theological  Review, 
ii,  pp.  28-49  (Jan.,  1909)- 

'In  310,  Paneg.,  chap.  14,  Migne:  Patrologia  Latinae,  viii,  col.  633 
-(In  Paneg.  Vet.  this  is  Paneg.,  no.  vii). 


43]  CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS  43 

formed  by  nature  and  rearing  that  he  could  not  be  cruel, 
he  is  pictured  as  ending  barbarian  wars  by  the  execution 
of  captured  kings  and  the  wholesale  destruction  of  pris- 
oners in  gladiatorial  shows.'  In  his  later  career,  how- 
ever, he  legislated  against  gladiatorial  shows, ^  and  in 
favor  of  better  treatment  of  prisoners. ^  He  also  com- 
manded milder  treatment  of  slaves  than  was  customary 
in  earlier  laws,  and  encouraged  their  manumission.'^ 
Branding  of  criminals,  for  instance,  was  to  be  upon  the 
hand,  so  that  the  face,  made  in  the  image  of  heavenly 
beauty,  should  not  be  marred.  In  the  laws  of  the  years 
319  and  326,  dealing  with  slavery,  the  distinction  made 
between  the  death  of  a  slave  through  cruelty  and  abuse 
and  his  death  resulting  from  punishment  of  misconduct 
is  the  decisive  note  and  an  improvement  over  previous 
legislation,  even  though  the  law  expressly  exempted  the 
master  from  penalty  in  the  latter  instance. ^  There  were 
edicts  issued  also  in  favor  of  widows  and  orphans  and 
the  poor,^  edicts  encouraging  the  freeing  of  slaves,  and 

^  Ibid.,  chaps.  10,  \i;  hicerti Paneg .  (Treves,  313) ,  chap.  23;  in  Migne, 
P.  L.,  viii,  col.  622  et  seq.;  670-671  resp. 

'  "  Cruenta  spectacula  in  otio  civili  et  domestica  quiete  non  placet. 
Quapropter,  qui  omnino  gladiatores  esse  prohibemus  eos,  qui  forte 
delictorum  causa  hanc  condicionem  adque  sententiam  mere.ri  consue- 
verant,  metallo  magis  facies  inservire,  ut  sine  sanguine  suorum  scelerum 
poenas  agnoscant."  Cod.  Theod.,  xv,  12,  i  (Oct.  i,  325).  Cf.  Euse- 
bius,  Life  of  Constantine ,  iv,  25, 

^Cod.  Theod.,  ix,  3,  i  (320);  ix,  3,  2  (326);  xi,  7,  3  (320). 

^Cod.  Theod.,  ii,  8,  i  (321);  iv,  7,  i  (321);  iv,8,  5  (322),  and  6  (323). 

'''Cod.  Theod.,  ix,  12,  i  (May  11,  319);  and  2  (April  18,  326).  Cf. 
Seeck:  Unterga^ig,  etc.,  i,  468,  478. 

^Cod.  Theod.,  \,  22,2  (June  17,  334);  iii,  30,  i  (Mar.  26,  314) ;  2  (Feb. 
3,  3i6[323]);  3  (Mar.  15,  326);  4  (Aug.  i,  331);  5  (April  18,  333);  ix, 
21,  4  (May  4,  329);  ix,  42,  i  (Feb.  27,  321).  Cf.  Eusebius,  Life  of 
Constantirie,  i,  43,  2;  iv,  28.    Athanasius  Apologia  contra  Arium,  18. 


44 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[44 


forbidding  the  exposing  of  children  to  get  rid  of 
them.' 

Constantine  also  issued  a  number  of  laws  against  im- 
morality and  immoral  religious  rites,  laws  providing  for 
and  regulating  the  punishment  of  adultery,  and  a  law 
prohibiting  the  custom  of  concubinage,^  at  that  time  not 
generally  condemned  by  public  sentiment  outside  the 
church.  These  laws  may  reasonably  be  inferred  to  be 
in  sympathy,  at  least,  with  the  opinion  of  Christian 
leaders  and  advisers  of  the  emperor. 

An  interesting  and  apparently  specifically  Christian 
turn  is  found  in  some  laws  directed  against  the  Jews. 
One  edict  early  in  Constantine's  reign  decrees  that 
Jews  or  their  elders  or  patriarchs  who  stone  a  convert 
to  Christianity  (ad  Dei  cultum)  or  otherwise  maltreat 
him  shall  be  burned,  with  all  their  associates  in  the  act.^ 

^Cod.  Theod.,  v,  9,  i  (April  17,  331);  xi,  27,  i  (May  13,  315),  2  (July 
6,  322). 

^The  law  of  326  (de  concub.,  Cod.  Just.,  v,  26,  i),  forbids  a  man  to 
have  a  concubine  if  his  wife  is  alive.  Cf.  D.  S.  Schaf¥,  '*  Concubinage  " 
(Christian),  in  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  iii,  817  (1911). 
Ct.  P.  Meyer,  Der  romische  Konkubinat,  (1895). 

Cod.  Theod.,  i,  22,  i  (Jan.  11,  316);  ii,  17,  i  (April  9,  321  [324]); 
iii,  16,  I  (331);  iv,  6,  2  (April  29,  336)  This  law,  however,  was  aimed 
especially  at  the  illegitimate  son  of  Licinius.  iv,  6,  3  (July  21,  336);  8,  7 
(Feb.  28,  331);  12,  I  [=  II,  I  Haenel]  (April  i,  314);  12,  4  [=  11,  5 
Haenel]  (Oct.  6,  331);  ix,  i,  i  (Dec.  4,  316-7);  7,  2  (April  25,  326); 
8,  I  (April  4,  326  [?]);  9,  i  (May  29,  326);  24,  i  (April  i,  320);  38,  i 
(Oct.  30,  322);  xii,  I,  6  (July  i,  319). 

Judaeis  et  majoribus  eorum  et  patriarchis  volumus  intimari,  quod, 
si  quis  post  banc  legem  aliquem  qui  eorum  feralem  fugerit  sectam  et  ad 
dei  cultum  respexerit,  saxis  aut  alio  furoris  genere,  quod  nunc  fieri  cog- 
novimus,  ausus  fuerit  adtemptare,  mox  flammis  dedendus  est  et  cum 
omnibus  suis  participibus  concremandus.  i.  Si  quis  vero  ex  populo  ad 
eorum  nefariam  sectam  accesserit  et  conciliabulis  eorum  se  adplicaverit, 
cum  ipsis  poenas  meritas  sustinebit."  Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  8,  i  (Oct.  18, 
315). 

A  later  injunction  against  Jew  s  molesting  in  any  way  converts  to 


45] 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS 


45 


Another  law  forbade  a  Jew  to  hold  a  Christian  in 
servitude.' 

Any  fair  summary  of  Constantine's  legislation  during 
the  period  of  his  sole  emperorship,  that  is,  during  the 
last  thirteen  years  of  his  life,  would  show  that  it  was 
more  favorable  to  Christianity  than  his  earlier  legislation, 
and  more  alien  to  paganism.  Much  of  it  seems  specific- 
ally Christian.  None  of  Constantine's  later  laws  justify 
the  theory  of  Burckhardt,  that  to  the  last  he  remained 
disposed  to  balance  favors  to  the  Christians  with  con- 
cessions to  the  pagan  element.  The  law  quoted  by 
Burckhardt  in  favor  of  certain  sacerdotales  and  fiamines 
perpetiii  in  Africa,  seems  merely  to  guarantee  the  contin- 
uance of  their  legal  and  social  privileges  even  after  they 
had  ceased  to  perform  any  religious  functions. 

2.  Coinage 

The  extant  coinage  of  Constantine  is  considerable, 
even  after  deducting  a  large  number  of  spurious  coins 
and  medals.3    Many  of  his  coins  bear  pagan  symbols  and 

Christianity  is  given  in  Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  8,  5  (Oct.  22,  335),  "  Eum, 
qui  ex  Judaeo  Christianus  factus  est,  inquietare  Judaeos  non  liceat  vel 
aliqua  pulsare  injuria,  pro  qualitate  commissi  istiusmodi  contumelia 
punienda." 

'  Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  9,  i  (Oct.  21,  335).  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine, 
iv,  27.  For  another  law  directed  tovi^ard  the  Jews,  cf.  Cod.  Theod., 
xvi,  8,  3  (Dec.  II,  321). 

"'Sacerdotales  et  flamines  perpetuos  atque  etiam  duumvirales  ab 
annonarum  praeposituris  inferioribusque  muneribus  inmunes  esse  prae- 
cipimus.  Quod  ut  perpetua  observatione  firmetur,  legem  hanc  incisam 
aeneis  tabulis  jussimus  publicare."  Cod.  Theod.,  xii,  5,  2  (May  21, 
337).  Cf.  Aurel.  Victor,  Caesars,  40.  Cf.  also,  Schultze,  Zeitsch.  f. 
K.  G.,  vii,  p.  369,  where  it  is  shown  that  men  of  these  orders  openly 
declared  themselves  in  inscriptions  to  be  Christians. 

'For  full  discussion  see  Jules  Maurice,  Numismatique  Constantini- 
enne,  vol.  i,  1908,  still  in  progress,  and  H.  Cohen:  Description  des 
Monnaies  f rappees   sous   V  Empire  romai?t,  communiment  appelies 


46 


CONSTANTIKE  AXD  CHRISTIANITY 


[46 


inscriptions  such  as  Soli  Invicti  Comiti,"  though  the 
estimate  of  these  by  Burckhardt  ^  and  others  seems  to  be 
a  gross  exaggeration.  "Hercules  conservator,"  "Mars 
conservator,"  ''Victoria,"  and  similar  dedications  occur 
more  or  less  frequently.^  The  title  ''Pontifex  Maximus  " 
occasionally  occurs,  sometimes  with  a  veiled  figure  repre- 
senting Constantine  as  such.  But  inferences  from  this  must 
not  be  carried  too  far,  for  succeeding  Christian  emperors 
also  bore  the  title. 

On  the  other  hand  some  coins  show  Constantine  look- 
ing up  as  if  in  prayer. ^  These  coins  first  appear  about 
325.  They  correspond  in  a  general  way  with  Eusebius' 
reference  to  them  as  tokens  of  the  emperor's  constant 
practice  of  prayer'^  and  miay  be  understood  as  an  in- 
dication of  Constantine's  professed  piety. ^  Coins  and 
medals,  one  minted  at  Constantinople,  with  Constantine's 
name,  and  the  reverse  shov/ing  a  veiled  figure  in  a  four- 
horse  chariot  ascending  toward  a  hand  outstretched  from 
above  need  not  necessarily  be  taken  as  a  reflection  of 

Medailles  imperiales  edited  and  continued  by  Feuardent,  8 vols.,  second 
ed.,  Paris,  1880-1892.  For  list  of  older  discussions,  cf.  Richardson's 
bibliography  in  A^zV^w^  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  second  series,  vol.  i,  p. 
445  et  seq.  For  shorter  discussions  see  Schiller:  Geschichte  der  romischen 
Kaiserzeit,  vol.  ii,  207,  219;  O.  Seeck  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Numismatiky  xxi 
(1898),  pp.  17-65,  and  Schultze  in  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  xiv  (1894),  PP- 
S04-510. 

*  Zeit  Const,  d.  G.,  p.  371,  "Soli  Invicti  Comiti"  on  four  out  of 
five. 

^Grisar,  in  Zeitsch.  f.  Kath.  TheoL,  vi,  p.  600  seq.,  maintains  that 
many  of  these  figures  generally  assumed  to  be  gods  are  mere  personi- 
fications of  Constantine's  greatness  and  victories,  and  cites  one  of  them 
vv^hich  has  on  the  reverse  an  indubitable  Christian  emblem. 

'For  prints  of  these  see  Cohen,  op.  cit.,  vii,  pp.  240,  256,  311,  400. 

^ Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  15. 

^Schultze,  in  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  xiv  (1894),  p.  504  et  seq. 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS  47 

Elijah's  translation.'  They  may  represent  the  apotheosis 
of  the  emperor,  as  similar  coins  are  said  to  have  been 
made  for  his  father,  Constantius,  who  was  not  a  Chris- 
tian. 

Schiller's  summary  of  Constantine's  coinage  is  sug- 
gestive, and  the  gradual  development  which  he  finds 
seems  justified,  though  his  insistence  upon  the  ambiguity 
of  signs  generally  accepted  as  Christian  betrays  a  strong 
bias  in  favor  of  his  theory  that  Constantine  tried  to 
straddle  between  Christianity  and  paganism.  He  shows 
that  in  Constantine's  western  mints  coins  ^  appear  with 
Mars,  genius  pop.  Rom.  and  with  Sol  invictus',  that 
the  first  two  ceased  in  315  or  earlier,  and  that  the 
last  disappeared,  perhaps  by  315,  at  any  rate  before  323. 
Coins  with  Juppiter  stamped  on  them  were  not  issued 
in  the  west  but  in  the  east  from  the  mints  of  Licinius. 
Gradually  non-commital  legends,  such  as  Beata  tran- 
quillitas  took  the  place  of  pagan  inscriptions.  Finally 
coins  with  the  monogram  were  issued,  and  toward 
the  end  of  Constantine's  life  series  were  issued  showing 
soldiers  bearing  the  labarum  with  this  monogram. 

3.  Inscriptions 

Two  inscriptions  have  been  the  center  of  controversy 
in  connection  with  Constantine's  position  in  religious 
matters,  one  on  his  triumphal  arch  at  Rome,  and  the 
other  at  a  building  in  Hispellum. 

The  middle  panels  of  the  attic,  on  both  the  north  and 
the  south  side  of  the  Arch  of  Constantine,  above  the 

^  See  Schultze. 

Roman  imperial  coinage  usually  bore  a  well-defined  clue  to  the  mint 
that  put  it  out. 

^  In  some  instances  this  was  a  sign  of  the  mint.  For  this  sign,  cf. 
infra,  p.  ^^  et  seq. 


48  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


central  passageway,  bear  the  following  dedicatory  in- 
scription : 

IMP  .  CAES  .  FL  .  CONSTANTINO  MAXIMO 
P  .  F  .  AVGVSTO  .  S  .  P  .  Q  .  R  . 
QVOD  INSTINCTV  DIVINITATIS  MENTIS 
MAGNITVDINECVM  EXERCITV  S  VO 
TAM  DETYRANNO  QVAM  DE  OMNI  EIVS 
FACTIONEVNOTEMPOREIVSTIS 
REMPVBLICAMVLTVSEST  ARMIS 
ARCVM  TRIVMPHIS INSIGNEM  DICAVIT 

or  in  full,  modern  form  : 

"  Imp(eratori)  Caes(ari)  F(lavio)  Constantino  Maximo 
P(io)  F(elici)  Augusto  S(enatus)  P(opulus)  q(ue) 
R(omanus)  quod  instinctu  divinitatis  mentis  magni- 
tudine  cum  exercitu  suo  tarn  de  tyranno  quam  de  omni 
eius  factione  uno  tempore  iustis  rempublicam  ultus  est 
armis  arcum  triumphis  insignem  dicavit."  This  may  be 
translated :  "  To  the  Emperor,  Caesar  Flavius  Con- 
stantius  Maximus,  Pius,  Felix,  Augustus,  inasmuch  as 
by  his  divine  inspiration  and  his  great  mind,  with  the 
help  of  his  army,  he  has  justly  avenged  the  republic  at 
the  same  time  upon  the  tyrant  and  upon  his  entire  party, 
the  Senate  and  the  Roman  People  do  dedicate  this  arch 
notable  for  triumphs." 

This  inscription,  commemorating  the  victory  over 
Maxentius  (312J,  is  almost  universally  assigned  to  the 
year  315,  the  date  of  Constantine's  assumption  of  the 
title  Maximus.  The  arch  is  generally  believed  to  have 
been  erected  between  312  and  315,  in  large  part  out  of 
materials  taken  from  other  monumental  works,  especially 
from  works  of  Trajan  and  other  emperors  of  the  second 
century.  The  theory  that  the  arch  was  constructed  in 
Trajan's  time  and  worked  over  for  Constantine's  benefit 
has  been  advocated  at  various  times.  Strong  arguments 
against  this  theory  were  advanced  by  such  authorities  as 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS  49 

Bunsen  '  and  Nibby.^  De  Rossi,  also,  who  made  a  care- 
ful examination  in  1863,  when  Napoleon  III  had  plaster 
casts  made  of  parts  of  the  arch,  reported  that  the  dedi- 
catory inscription  quoted  above  was  carved  in  marble 
blocks,  which  were  an  integral  part  of  the  structure 
itself,  and  that  there  was  every  indication  that  it  was  the 
original  and  the  only  inscription  ever  carved  there.^ 
Lanciani,  after  examination  of  the  staircase  and  rooms 
in  the  attic,  pronounced  the  inside  of  the  structure  to  be 
built  with  a  great  variety  of  materials  taken  from  monu- 
ments belonging  to  the  Fabii  and  to  the  Arruntii.  He 
pronounced  the  bricks,  however,  contemporary  with 
Constantine.  ^ 

Recently,  A.  L.  Frothingham,  whose  Monuments  of 
Christian  Rome  (1908)  described  the  arch  as  erected 
in  the  time  of  Constantine,  has  argued  that  it  was 
originally  erected  in  the  time  of  Domitian,  that  it  was 
afterwards  undedicated  "  and  mutilated,  that  it  was  used 
in  the  third  century  as  a  sort  of  imperial  "triumphal 
bulletin-board,"  and  that  its  "Odyssey"  ended  with  its 
final  dedication  to  Constantine.^  He  bases  his  new 
opinion  (i)  on  the  well-know  frequency  with  which 
Domitian  had  arches  erected;  (2)  on  the  bas-relief  from 
the  mausoleum  of  the  Haterii  showing  an  unidentified 
monument  where  the  Arch  of  Constantine  now  stands — 
between  the  Arch  of  Titus  and  the  Colosseum,  and  facing 
the  latter;  (3)  on  the  decree  of  memoriae  da^nnatio 
passed  against  Domitian  after  his  death ;  (4)  on  the  fact 

^  Beschreibung  der  Stadt  Rom  (1837),  vol.  iii,  part  i. 
''Roma  7ielVanno  MDCCCXXXVIII  (1838),  part  i,  p.  443  et  seq. 
^  Bullettino  di  Archeologia  cristiana  del  Cav.  G.  B.  de  Rossi  (Rome) , 
I,  No.  7  (July,  1863);  No.  8  (Aug.,  1863),  Miscellaneous  (1863). 
The  Ruins  and  Excavations  of  Ancient  Rome  (1897),  pp.  191-192. 
^Century  Magazine,  vol.  Ixxxv,  pp.  449-455  (Jan.,  1913). 


50 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


that  triumphs  were  granted  and  arches  built  for  victories 
over  foreign  foes  alone,  not  for  victories  in  civil  wars  ; 
(5)  on  the  phrase  in  the  inscription  quoted  above, 
*'  arcum  triumphis  insignem  dicavit,"  which  he  translates, 
"  do  dedicate  herewith  .  .  .  this  arch,  famous  for  its 
triumphs ; "  (6)  on  his  belief  that  the  set  of  eight  medal- 
lions over  the  smaller  passageways  representing  hunting 
scenes  are  in  the  style  of  Domitian  and  were  part  of  the 
original  decoration,  while  the  rest  of  the  ornamentation 
was  inserted  later;  (7)  and  on  the  "series  of  eight 
niches  with  half-figures  of  emperors  being  crowned  by 
victories"  under  the  two  smaller  arcades.  This  argu- 
ment as  a  whole  seems  plausible,  but  is  by  no  means 
convincing.  The  connection  of  the  first  three  points 
with  the  Arch  of  Constantine  is  purely  speculative,  the 
second  one  being  also  weakened  by  the  fact  that  the  un- 
identified arch  on  the  Haterian  bas-relief,  which  Froth- 
ingham  identifies  as  an  arch  of  Domitian  later  converted 
into  the  Arch  of  Constantine,  plainly  represents  a  struc- 
ture with  openings  on  all  four  sides  (quadrafrons)  afford- 
ing passageway  not  only  from  north  to  south,  but  from 
east  to  west ;  quite  a  different  structure  from  the  one  we 
are  considering.  The  fourth  point,  while  well  taken,  is 
not  conclusive ;  there  may  well  have  been  exception  in 
the  fourth  century,  and  the  argument  would  tell  as 
effectively  against  the  dedication  of  an  old  triumphal 
arch  as  against  the  erection  of  a  new  one.  The  fifth, 
sixth  and  seventh  points  involve  question  of  interpreta- 
tion of  literary  and  archaeological  evidence,  in  which  the 
weight  of  opinion  is  against  Mr.  Frothingham.  More- 
over, the  history  of  the  arch  as  he  reconstructs  it  would 
certainly  be  unique  in  the  Roman  empire,  involving  more 
difficulties  than  does  the  generally  accepted  account.' 
'  For  the  Arch  of  Constantine,  in  addition  to  the  works  cited  above, 


3 1  ]  CONSTANTIXE'S  LA  WS  AND  WRITINGS  5 1 

Our  interest,  however,  is  in  the  dedicatory  inscription. 
It  will  be  seen  that  this  ascribes  Constantine's  victory 
partly  to  his  army,  but  primarily  to  the  prompting  of 
divinity  and  his  greatness  of  mind,  Instinctu  Divinitatis 
Mentis  Magnitudine."  The  phrase  is  colorless  and  ab- 
solutely indecisive  as  between  paganism  and  Christianity. 
It  does  not  even  necessarily  refer  to  any  special  mani- 
festation of  providence,  pagan  or  Christian.  Victories 
have  in  all  times  been  ascribed  to  divine  favor  irre- 
spective of  the  religion  involved  and  even  of  the  circum- 
stances of  the  battle.  Constantine's  earlier  triumphs  in 
Gaul  had  long  before  this  been  ascribed  by  pagan  pane- 
gyrists to  something  like  "  instinctus  divinitatis,  mentis 
magnitudo."'  The  monotheism  of  the  conqueror  may  be 
inferred  from  the  inscription,  since  if  Constantine  had 
been  a  pagan  of  the  old  type  there  would  prou^.b^/  have 
been  specific  reference  to  Jupiter,  Apollo  or  some  other 
pagan  deity.  One  would  infer,  also,  that  he  was  not  at 
this  time  a  zealous  Christian,  nor  thought  to  be  such, 
otherwise  some  distinctively  Christian  phrase  would  have 
been  used.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  indefinite- 
ness  of  the  phrase  represents  the  thought  of  the  pagan 
Senate  rather  than  the  emperor's  attitude. 

The  matter  has  been  complicated  by  the  theory  that 
"instinctu  divinitatis  "  was  not  the  original  inscription, 
but  a  correction  carved  later  over  the  original  phrase. 

cf.  Jordan,  Topographic  '  der  Stadt  Rom  im  Altertum,  ed.  Huelsen 
(Berlin,  1907),  vol.  i,  part  3,  pp.  45  et  seq.;  H.  Grisar,  Geschichte 
Rams  (1901),  vol.  i,  p.  172.;  E.  Petersen,  Vom  altem  Rom  (Leipsic, 
1911) ,  p.  66  et  seq. 

Photographs  of  the  Arch  and  other  reproductions  have  been  fre- 
quently published.  Detailed  descriptions  with  excellent  photographic 
reproductions  are  given  by  J.  Leufkens  in  Konstaniin  der  Crosse  u. 
seine  Zeit,  ed.  by  Dolger,  pp.  161-216,  and  plates  iii,  iv,  v,  vi. 

*  Cf.  infra,  p.  131  et  seq. 


52  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [52 

It  has  even  been  asserted  that  the  original  inscription 
was  "  NVTV.  1.  O.  M.,"  "  at  the  nod  of  Jupiter  Optimus 
Maximus."'  This  theory,  however,  seems  utterly  unten- 
able. The  spacing  of  the  inscription  would  be  very 
peculiar,  indeed,  if  such  a  phrase  had  really  been  a  part 
of  it,  and  close  study  of  the  attic  of  the  Arch  seems  to 
afford  no  grounds  for  assuming  that  the  inscription  ever 
contained  other  words  than  are  now  to  be  seen  in  it.  ^ 

In  the  ruins  of  a  building  in  the  little  Umbrian  city  of 
Hispellum  an  inscription  ^  recites  that  the  emperor 
granted  a  petition  for  the  erection  of  a  temple  in  honor 
of  the  gens  Flavia  to  which  he  belonged,  for  the  celebra- 
tion there  of  certain  festal  performances  with  the  stipu- 
lation that  the  temple  was  not  to  be  polluted  with  the 
frauds  of  tainted  superstition,  "  ne  aedis  nostro  nomini 
dedicata  cuiusquam  contagiosae  superstitionis  fraudibus 
polluatur.  "  In  spite  of  Burckhardt's  opinion  to  the  con- 
trary, ^  this  probably  meant  the  prohibition  of  pagan  rites, 
and  the  building  was  intended  apparently,  not  as  a  place 
of  worship,  but  as  a  place  for  game  and  other  celebrations, 
including,  it  must  be  admitted,  gladiatorial  shows.  ^ 

A  third  inscription  ^  shows  that  privileges  were  given 
to  localities  on  account  of  all  their  inhabitants  being 

^  For  full  assertion  of  this  theory  and  references,  see  Burckhardt, 
Zeit  Co7istantins  d.  Grossen,  pp.  343-344,  475-6. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  49;  also  Seeck,  Gesch.  d.  Untergangs  der  antiken 
Welt.,  i,  p.  491;  Dessau,  694;  Keim,  Der  Uebertritt  Constantins,  d.  G. 
zum  Chrisientum. 

^Ascribed  to  336-337  A.  D.,  Dessau  705;  Orelli  5580;  printed  in 
Muratori  Inscr.  iii  p.  1791  as  spurious,  but  now  generally  accepted  as 
genuine. 

*Zeit  Constantins  d.  G.  p.  382. 

^Cf.  Seeck:  Gesch.  d.  Untergangs  d.  a^ttiken  Welt,  i,  471. 
^  C.  I.  L,  iii  7000  "  quibus  omnibus  quasi  quidam  cumulus  accedit 
quod  omnes  ibidem  sectatores  sanctissimae  religionis  habitare  dicantur.  " 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS  53 

adherents  of  (our)  most  sacred  religion. "  Taken 
with  Eusebius'  account'  of  special  honor  being  shown 
Gaza  and  a  town  in  Phoenicia  on  the  same  ground,  this 
is  proof  of  the  emperor's  active  interest  in,  and  associa- 
tion with  Christianity  after  he  became  sole  emperor. 

4.  Writi7tgs 

Aside  from  coins  and  inscriptions  a  considerable  body 
of  direct  evidence  on  Constantine's  religion  has  been 
preserved,  chiefly  by  Eusebius,  in  the  form  of  speeches 
and  letters  attributed  to  him.^  The  longest  of  these  is 
the  Easter  sermon,  or  Oration  of  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantine  to  the  Assembly  of  the  Saints,"  which  Eusebius 
appended  to  his  Life  of  Constantine  as  a  sample  of  the 
discourses  which  he  says  Constantine  was  in  the  habit 
of  delivering  to  the  court  and  even  to  the  public. ^  This 
is  held  by  Schultze,^  chiefly  on  the  ground  of  contra- 
dictions which  it  involves  to  Eusebius'  narrative,  and 
some  close,  even  verbal  resemblances  to  Lactantius,  to 
be  not  a  speech  of  the  emperor's,  but  some  Latin  docu- 
ment copied  by  Eusebius.  Since  Eusebius  did  not  hear 
the  speech  and  was  only  at  rare  intervals  at  the  court,^ 
such  a  mistake  was  within  the  realm  of  possibility.  But 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  its  obvious  dependence  upon 
Lactantius  and  its  variations  from  Eusebius'  own  state- 
ments,^ do  not  militate  against  the  speech  being  Con- 

^  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  37,  38. 

'•^For  lists,  with  comments,  see  Richardson's  "Prolegomena"  in 
Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Second  Series,  vol.  i,  Eusebius,  pp. 
436-439.    Cf.  also  infra,  p.  109  et  seq.    For  imperfect  and  uncritical 
edition  of  Constantine's  Works,  cf.  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  viii,  93-581. 
Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  29-32. 
^Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  viii  (1886),  p.  541  et  seq. 
^ Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  33;  39;  46. 
Eg.  Lactantius,  Divine  Institutes,  i,  4-7,  iv,  18-19,  and  Constantine, 


54 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[54 


stantine's.  Lactantius,  as  the  tutor  of  the  emperor's 
sons  and  a  member  of  his  household,  probably  influ- 
enced his  religious  conceptions  as  much  as  any  one  else, 
certainly  more  than  Eusebius.  Constantine  may  well 
not  only  have  read  his  writings,  but  also  have  used  them 
without  acknowledgment  in  his  speeches.  Indeed,  Lac- 
tantius may  have  written  the  speech  for  the  emperor  to 
deliver. 

Many  letters  purporting  to  be  Constantine's  have  been 
preserved,  some  in  Eusebius'  Church  History,  more  in 
his  Life  of  Constantine,  and  a  few  elsewhere.  Those 
whose  genuineness  is  practically  unquestioned,  and  those 
which  are  in  doubt,  do  not  vary  greatly  in  tone.  They 
are  characterized  by  a  loose,  difficult  style,  in  many  cases 
made  worse  by  translation  from  Latin  into  Greek.'  If 
we  restrict  ourselves  to  those  whose  genuineness  there 
is  no  reason  for  questioning,  we  get  a  picture  of  one  on 
terms  of  official  intimacy  with  the  leading  bishops,  writ- 
ing as  one  personally  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the 
church,  and  as  a  believer  in  its  teachings.  From  a  theo- 
logical point  of  view  they  expound  a  somewhat  vague 

Oration  to  the  Saints,  chaps,  xviii-xxi,  maintain  that  the  Sibyl  and 
other  heathen  sources  foretold  the  Christian  revelation  and  Christ, 
while  Eusebius,  Oration  in  Praise  of  Co7isianiine,  chap,  ix,  expressly 
declared  they  did  not. 

^  Among  the  most  important  in  Eusebius,  not  mentioned  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  legislation,  are  the  following:  Church  History,  x,  5,  18-21; 
21-24;  Life  of  Consia7itine,  ii,  46;  64-72;  iii,  17-20;  30-32;  42;  52-53; 
60;  61;  62;  iv,  36.  Athanasius  gives  several  bearing  on  himself  and  the 
Arian  controversy;  e.  g.  Apol.  contra  Ar.,  lix;  Ix,  Ixi;  Ixii;  Ixviii;  Ixx; 
Ixxxvi.  Augustine,  also,  Ep.,  Ixxxviii.  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  gives  sev- 
eral letters,  the  genuineness  of  which  is  open  to  question,  in  his  History 
of  the  Cou7icii  of  Nicea  (in  Labbe,  Concilia,  2  (1671),  pp.  103-286). 
For  a  list  of  44  letters,  not  including  all  the  above  and  giving  some 
from  other  sources,  cf.  Richardson,  Prolegomena,  in  Nicene  and  Post- 
Nice7ie  Fathers,  Second  Series,  vol.  i,  Eusebius,  pp.  436-439. 


CONSTANTINE'S  LAWS  AND  WRITINGS  55 

monotheism  linked  rather  clumsily  to  a  revelation  in 
Christ  which  is  represented  in  the  organized  church. 
The  Christian  church,  and  Christians,  are  therefore  the 
representatives  and  the  proteges  of  God.  Immortality 
is  occasionally  emphasized,  but  there  is  little  attempt 
after,  or  feeling  for,  those  teachings  and  experiences, 
which  in  all  ages  have  constituted  the  highest  types  of 
Christianity. 

The  most  characteristic  passages,  varying  phases  of  the 
dominant  note,  are  those  in  which  Constantine  speaks  of 
the  favor  of  God  as  the  source  of  his  own  great  achieve- 
ments and  success.  "  I  myself,  then,  was  the  instrument 
whose  services  he  chose,  and  esteemed  suited  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  his  will.  Accordingly,  beginning  at  the 
remote  Brittanic  ocean,  through  the  aid  of  divine  power 
I  banished  and  utterly  removed  every  form  of  evil  which 
prevailed.  "  '  "  But  now  that  liberty  is  restored,  and  that 
serpent,  [Licinius,  Constantine's  brother-in-law]  driven 
from  the  administration  of  public  afifairs  by  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  and  our  instrumentality,  we  must  trust 
that  all  can  see  the  efficacy  of  the  Divine  power. "  ^ 
"  Under  thy  guidance  have  I  devised  and  accomplished 
measures  fraught  wuth  blessings  :  preceded  by  the  sacred 
sign  I  have  led  thy  armies  to  victory.  *  *  *  For  thy 
name  I  truly  love,  while  I  regard  with  reverence  that 
power  of  which  thou  has  given  abundant  proofs,  to  the 
confirmation  and  increase  of  my  faith.  "  ^ 

^Eusebius  :  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  28,  quoting  Constantine. 
Ibid  ii,  46. 

^  Ibid  ii,  55  Cf.  Oration  of  Constantine  to  the  Assembly  of  the  Saints, 
(his  Easter  sermon)  appended  to  the  Life  of  Constantine,  chap.  22,  i; 
chap.  26.    Also  Eusebius  :  Church  History  x,  7,  i  and  2. 


CHAPTER  III 


IMPERIAL  PATRONAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  ;  ATTITUDE  TOWARD 

PAGANISM 

I.  Church  Building 

Aside  from  legislation  and  other  evidence  already  cited, 
many  phases  of  imperial  patronage  of  religion  are  disclosed 
by  writers  of  Constantine's  time.  Thus,  in  the  erection  of 
buildings,  in  the  entourage  of  the  court,  and  in  the  attitude 
of  contemporary  Christian  and  pagan  leaders,  one  can  trace 
the  dominance  of  one  or  another  religious  influence. 

Constantine  followed  the  example  of  many  of  his  prede- 
cessors in  erecting  innumerable  buildings.  Early  in  his 
career,  in  Gaul,  he  rebuilt  the  public  structures  of  x\utun.^ 
Nazarius  extolled  his  building  as  well  as  his  restoration  of 
order  in  Rome  immediately  after  the  victory  over  Maxen- 
tius.^  His  friendly  attitude  toward  Christianity  was,  there- 
fore, naturally  shown  in  the  erection  of  churches.  Eusebius 
abounds  in  sweeping  statements  of  wholesale  erection  of 
Christian  memorials,  basilicas  and  churches  throughout  the 
empire.^ 

Zosimus,  the  pagan  historian,  with  characteristic  spleen, 
tells  of  his  wasting  public  money  on  many  useless  buildings. 

^  Cf.  the  panegyric  of  Eumenius  (310)  at  Treves,  chap.  22.  and  the 
oration  of  formal  thanks  the  following  year,  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  cols. 
639,  641. 

^  Panegyricus  of  321,  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  col.  605  ei  seq.  (chap.  33). 
'  Cf.  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine,  chaps.  9  et  seq. ;  Life  of  Con- 
stantine, i,  42;  ii,  45  and  46;  iii,  i,  47  and  50. 

56  [56 


IMPERIAL  PATRONAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  c^y 

some  of  which  were  so  badly  constructed  that  they  had  to 
be  torn  down.  The  Theodosian  Code  bears  testimony  to 
his  zeal  for  building,  at  the  time  of  the  rearing  of  many 
structures  in  Constantinople,  by  his  instructions  for  estab- 
lishing schools  of  architecture/ 

Many  important  church  structures  were,  beyond  reason- 
able doubt,  built  by  him  or  through  his  influence,  and  by 
members  of  his  family.^  Most  of  our  information  about 
churches  built  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  empire  comes  from 
Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine.  Aside  from  general  state- 
ments about  the  zeal  of  the  emperor  and  of  his  mother, 
Helena,  in  this  cause  the  biographer  refers  specifically  to 
the  following:  the  Church  of  the  Sepulchre^  and  its  adja- 
cent basilica,  in  Jerusalem;  a  church  on  the  Mount  of 
Olives,*  a  basilica  in  Bethlehem  ^  and  at  Mamre ;  ^  a  church 
at  Heliopolis,'  at  Antioch,^  at  Nicomedia;  ^  the  Church  of 
the  Twelve  Apostles  at  Constantinople,^'^  in  which  Constan- 
tine's  own  sepulchral  monument  was  built  Of  most  of 
these  Eusebius  gives  a  glowing  description,  and  in  the  case 
of  the  Church  of  the  Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem  and  the  Church 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles  at  Constantinople,  he  gives  a  de- 
tailed and  elaborate  account.    These  two,  and  the  church  at 


2  Ciampini,  De  sacris  aedificns  a  Constantino  Magno  constructis  synopiis 
historia,  Rome,  1693,  is  still  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  information 
about  these,  though  his  identifications  are  not  always  accepted  by  mod- 
ern archaeologists. 

'  iii,  25-40;  cf.  also  Anonymi  itinerarunv  (Bordeaux  pilgrim),  A.  D. 
333,  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  viii,  col.  791. 

*  iii,  41-43 ;  cf.  also  Bordeaux  pilgrim,  loc.  cit. 

^  Ibid.    Cf.  Bordeaux  pilgrim,  col,  792. 

*iii,  51-53;  cf.  also  Bordeaux  pilgrim,  loc.  cit. 

'  iii,  58.  ^  iii,  50. 

*Ibid.  loiv,  58-60. 


58  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [58 

Antioch  must  have  been  magnificent  and  costly  structures. 
One  of  Eusebius'  continuators,  Socrates,  who  spent  a  large 
part  of  his  life  in  Constantinople,  tells  of  another  church 
in  that  city  named  Irene  (Peace),  which  he  says  Constan- 
tine  considerably  enlarged  and  adorned/  It  may  origi- 
nally have  antedated  Constantine  at  Byzantium,  or  may 
have  been  built  in  the  first  instance  by  the  emperor,  perhaps 
shortly  after  his  victory  over  Licinius  and  the  restoration 
of  peace  to  the  empire. 

Rome  is  the  only  city  in  the  West  in  which  the  erection 
of  any  particular  churches  can  be  assigned,  on  any  consid- 
erable historical  evidence,  to  Constantine  and  his  family. 
Even  here  much  is  left  uncertain.  He  unquestionably  gave 
the  bishop  at  Rome  at  least  the  temporary  use  of  the  Lateran 
palace,  which  had  come  into  his  possession  through  his 
wife,  Fausta.  In  313  Bishop  Miltiades  presided  there  over 
the  well-known  conference  called  at  Constantine's  direction 
to  settle  the  incipient  Donatist  schism  in  Africa.  In  con- 
nection -with  this  palace,  or  out  of  part  of  it,  Constantine 
built  the  basilica  (and  adjacent  baptistery)  which,  under 
the  name  of  the  Lateran,  was  to  becomie  for  centuries  the 
"  mother  and  head  of  all  the  churches  of  the  city  and  the 
world."  In  early  days  it  was  called  the  Basilica  of  Con- 
stantine (not  to  be  confused  with  the  great  civil  basilica 
which,  begun  by  Maxentius,  w^as,  after  his  defeat  and  death, 
finished  by  his  conqueror,  and  became  the  basilica  of  Con- 
stantine), and  in  later  days  became  St.  John  of  the  Lateran, 
in  honor  of  John  the  Baptist.^  No  vestige  of  its  original 
features  now  remain. 

^  Ecclesiastical  History,  ii,  16 ;  i,  16,  2. 

^On  this  church,  cf.  Lanciani,  Ruins  and  Excavations  of  Ancient 
Rome,  pp.  339-343;  Frothingham,  Monuments  of  Christian  Rome,  p.  24. 
Niebuhr,  Vortrdge  iiber  alte  L'dnden  u.  Vdlkerkunde,  p.  399,  accepted 
Constantinian  origin  for  the  Lateran  buildings  alone.   Gregorovius,  Rome 


IMPERIAL  PATRONAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  59 

In  the  case  of  the  Lateran,  as  of  other  churches  which 
Constantine  may  have  built  or  enlarged,  the  ecclesiastical 
structure  must  have  been  overshadowed  by  the  magnificent 
buildings  of  ancient  Rome  with  which  it  was  surrounded. 
The  Notitia  which  was  edited  about  330  and  which  enumer- 
ated the  important  public  buildings  of  the  city,  did  not 
mention  a  single  Christian  Church/  Eusebius,  in  connec- 
tion with  Rome,  mentions  only  Constantine's  benefactions 
to  the  churches ;  he  names  no  churches  which  he  built  there, 
but  refers  only  to  his  "  enlarging  and  heightening  "  and 
"  embellishing  "  the  sacred  structures.^  Though  Eusebius 
wrote  with  only  a  distant  knowledge  of  Rome,  his  state- 
ment counts  for  something  against  the  later  extravagant 
traditions  of  Constantine's  church  building  at  Rome.  The 
Liber  PontiUcalis,  also,  which,  though  compiled  more  than 
two  hundred  years  after  Constantine,  embodied  informa- 
tion from  earlier  documents,  while  it  is  full  of  descriptions 
of  lavish  embellishments  and  endowments,  gives  only  a 
very  modest  list  of  churches  as  of  Constantinian  origin.^ 

Another  palace  within  the  city  walls,  the  Sessorian,  ap- 
parently furnished  room  for  an  ecclesiastical  structure  by 
the  conversion  of  its  main  hall  into  a  church.  This  was 
the  Jerusalem  church,  and  later  became  the  "  Holy  Cross 
in  Jerusalem"  {Santa  Croce  in  Gernsalemme),  from  the 

in  the  Middle  Ages,  i,  pp.  88-95,  after  naming  seven  churches  which 
tradition  ascribes  to  Constantine,  added :  "  We  can  ascertain  nothing 
definite  of  these  buildings ;  and  perhaps  St.  John  Lateran  alone  owes 
its  origin  to  the  Emperor." 

'  Cf.  Frothingham,  Monuments  of  Christian  Rome,  p.  31. 

^  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  42. 

'  Cf.  the  account  it  gives  of  Sylvester's  pontificate.  Cf.  also  Du- 
chesne's discussion  in  the  introduction  of  his  edition  of  the  Lib.  Pont., 
vol.  i,  p.  cxl  et  seq. 


6o  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [60 

preservation  in  it  of  the  principal  relic  of  the  True  Cross.^ 
A  parish  church  inside  the  old  city,  that  of  Equitius,  after- 
wards 5^6'.  Silvestro  e  Martino  ai  Monti,  is  claimed  by  the 
Liber  Pontificalis  for  the  episcopate  of  Sylvester,  Constan- 
tine's  contemporary,  and  its  remains  are  so  assigned  by 
many  archaeologists.^  If  this  be  correct  it  was  probably  one 
of  the  beneficiaries  of  the  emperor's  generosity,  even 
though  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  its  builder. 

Outside  the  walls,  according  to  the  Liber  Pontificalis,  2l 
large  basilica  of  St.  Peter  was  erected  (on  the  Vatican 
Hill),  a  smaller  basilica  of  St.  Paul  (on  the  Via  Ostiensis), 
a  basilica  of  St.  Lawrence  (on  the  Via  Tiburtina),  a  basilica 
of  St.  Agnes  (on  the  Via  Nomentana),  and  one  of  SS. 
Marcellinus  and  Peter  (on  the  Via  Praenestina).  The 
mausoleum  of  Constantina  (incorrectly  called  Constantia) 
near  the  basilica  of  St.  Agnes,  was  apparently  used  as  the 
baptistery  of  the  latter  and  should  therefore  be  included 
in  the  list.^  While  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  all  of  these 
buildings  owed  their  origin  to  Constantine,  his  family,  or 
pontiffs  contemporary  with  him,  such  is  the  very  general 
opinion  of  archaeologists  and  of  church  historians.*  It  is 
probable  also  that  these  and  other  churches  received  some, 
if  by  no  means  all,  of  the  ornaments  and  endowments  which 
later  were  described  in  such  detail  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis. 
Though  tradition  has  doubtless  exaggerated  the  extent  of 
Constantine's  building,  adorning  and  endowing  of  churches, 

*  C/.  Frothingham,  op.  cit.,  p.  24;  Lanciani,  op.  ext.,  pp.  397  et  seq. 
2  Frothingham,  op.  cit.,  pp.  22-23. 

'  For  a  short  account  of  all  these  buildings,  cf.  Frothingham,  op.  cit., 
pp.  24-31. 

*For  short  summaries  of  Constantine's  church  building,  cf.  W.  R. 
Lethaby  and  C.  H.  Turner,  in  Cambridge  Medieval  History,  vol.  i,  pp. 
609-611,  and  158  respectively.  The  argument  that  Constantine  was  at 
Rome  only  at  long  intervals  and  for  short  stays  does  not,  as  is  some- 
times assumed,  prove  that  he  did  not  order  extensive  building  there. 


5i]        IMPERIAL  PATRONAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  6l 

it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  he  was  in  this  regard  not  only 
the  earliest,  but  one  of  the  most  profuse  of  imperial  patrons 
of  the  church. 

2.  Constantine's  Actions  at  Rome 

In  the  campaign  against  Maxentius,  Constantine  made 
use  of  the  cross  and  the  monogram  among  his  military  in- 
signia, perhaps  as  a  result  of  a  dream/  After  his  entry 
into  Rome  he  is  said  to  have  erected  in  the  city  a  statue  of 
himself  holding  a  cross  in  his  hand,  and  inscribed  with  the 
following  phrases,  "  By  this  salutary  sign,  the  true  proof 
of  bravery,  I  have  saved  and  freed  your  city  from  the  yoke 
of  the  tyrant,"  etc.~  These  references  in  Eusebius  are  our 
only  evidences  and  they  have  been  questioned,^  but  their 
repetition  by  him  in  different  circumstances,  especially  in 
the  Church  History  and  in  the  oration  at  Tyre  in  314,  has 
something  of  cumulative  evidence.  The  probability  of  such 
a  statue  being  erected  is  great,  and  is  increased  by  the  fact 
that  Maxentius  declared  hostilities  by  overthrowing  and 
defacing  statues  of  Constantine  at  Rome.*  I  am  therefore 
inclined  to  accept  Eusebius'  statements. 

The  honor  of  apotheosis  granted  to  Diocletian  (soon 
after  313)  probably  by  the  Senate,  is  sometimes  cited  as 
evidence  that  Constantine  was  not  a  Christian  at  this  time,^ 
but  not  much  weight  ought  to  be  attached  to  it.    Rome  was 

*  For  discussion  of  stories  of  Constantine's  conversion  in  this  connec- 
tion, cf.  infra,  pp.  78  et  seq.;  135  et  seq. 

2  Eusebius,  Church  History,  ix,  9,  10;  11;  x,  4,  16;  Oration  in  Praise 
of  Constantine,  ix,  9,  18;  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  40. 

Cf.  Brieger  in  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.  (1880),  p.  45. 

*  Nazarius,  Panegyricus  (321),  chap.  12. 

^  Cf.  Burckhardt,  Zcit  Constantins  d.  G.,  p.  345.  This  was  the  last 
time  this  was  done  in  the  old  pagan  sense. 


62  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [62 

Still  strongly  pagan ;  the  act  was  very  natural,  and  probably 
a  mere  formality. 

On  the  other  hand,  Constantine,  in  the  latter  part  of  his 
reign,  during  his  last  visit  to  Rome,  seems  to  have  taken  a 
definite  stand  against  public  ceremonies  which  involved 
recognition  of  the  old  gods.  He  refused  on  this  occasion 
to  lead  the  military  procession  of  the  equestrian  order  and 
present  himself  before  the  Jupiter  of  the  Capitoline  hill.^ 
Something  of  a  riot  is  said  to  have  resulted  from  his  de- 
fiance of  the  public  sentiment  which  supported  the  cere- 
mony. 

3.  Personal  Favor  Shown  Churchmen  and  the  Church 

Of  great  significance  is  the  unquestioned  fact  that  Con- 
stantine employed  (317)  a  Christian  rhetorician,  the  well- 
known  writer  Lactantius,  as  the  tutor  of  his  sons,  especially 
Crispus.  All  of  his  children  were  given  a  distinctively 
Christian  education  and  the  sons  who  succeeded  him  in  im- 
perial power  carried  out  a  decisively  Christian  policy  in  the 
government.^ 

Christian  bishops  were  continually  present  at  Constan- 
tine's  court  after  312.  Hosius,  bishop  of  Cordova  in  Spain, 
may  have  been  with  him  in  his  campaign  against  Maxen- 
tius;  he  certainly  accompanied  him  on  an  expedition  later, 
and  seems  to  have  been  very  influential  at  court.^  Euse- 
bius  of  Nicomedia  for  many  years  enjoyed  the  favor  of  the 
emperor  as  well  as  that  of  his  family.  Eusebius  of  Cae- 
sarea  delighted  to  recount  expressions  of  royal  appreciation 

^  Zosimus,  ii,  29.  Though  Zosimus  is  not  always  a  reliable  source, 
there  is  no  reason  to  reject  this  story.   Cf.  infra,  p.  63,  n.  6. 

2  Cod.  Theod.,  xvi,  10,  2  and  4.  Cf.  Boyd,  op.  cit.,  pp.  21-23.  See  also 
Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  52.  For  Lactantius,  cf.  Jerome,  de 
Vir.  III.,  80. 

'  Eusebius,  Church  History,  x,  6,  2 ;  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  63 ;  Soc- 
rates, i,  2,  i;  Athanasius,  Apol.  c.  Ar.,  75. 


IMPERIAL  PATRONAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY ,  63 


which  he  received  at  his  appearance  before  Constantine 
and  in  letters  from  him/  At  the  Council  of  Nicea  the  em- 
peror showered  attentions  upon  the  bishops,  and  especially 
upon  those  who  had  suffered  during  the  persecutions.^ 
Making-  all  allowance  for  exaggerations  by  Eusebius  and 
other  ecclesiastics  who  were  dazzled  by  the  eminence  thus 
given  them,  the  direct  patronage  bestowed  upon  the  church 
and  upon  many  leading  churchmen  must  have  been  ex- 
ceedingly liberal.  Ammianus  Marcellinus  complained  of 
his  disorganizing  the  post  service  by  giving  Christian 
bishops  free  use  of  it  in  attending  councils.^ 

He  granted  public  money  to  various  clergymen  and 
churches,*  and  spent  large  sums  on  church  buildings.'^  So 
far  as  we  know  he  took  little  or  no  part  during  his  later  life 
in  pagan  ceremonies.'' 

4.  Attitude  Toward  Paganism 
Reports  of  the  destruction  of  pagan  temples  by  Constan- 
tine's  orders  and  of  his  approval  of  their  destruction  by  the 
people  come  down  to  us  from  nearly  all  sources.    Most,  if 
not  all  of  these,  refer  to  the  last  ten  years  of  his  life.  Some 

Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  33-36;  46;  iii,  61. 
^  Ibid.,  iii,  15,  22.    Cf.  also  Theodoret,  i,  ii,  i. 
''xxi,  16,  18. 

*  Eusebius,  Church  History,  x,  6,  Constantine's  letter  to  Cecilian, 
bishop  of  Carthage,  informing  him  of  an  appropriation,  and  authoriz- 
ing him  to  draw  on  the  treasury. 

5  Cf.  supra,  p.  56  et  seq. 

®  For  his  refusal  to  take  part  in  the  military  procession  of  the  eques- 
trian order  to  offer  public  vows  to  Jupiter  on  the  Capitoline  Hill, 
cf.  supra,  p.  62.  Zosimus  elsewhere  affirms  that  Constantine 
tolerated  heathen  rites,  and  even  took  part  in  them  (ii,  29,  3),  but 
his  statements  to  that  effect  in  part  refer  to  the  earlier  years  of  Con- 
stantine, in  part  are  trivial,  and  are  always  under  the  suspicion  of  ex- 
treme partisanship.  It  can  readily  be  seen  that  entire  removal  of  pagan 
elements  in  all  public  ceremonies  or  absolute  refusal  to  participate  in 
such  unpurified  occasions  would  in  any  case  be  difficult  and  unnecessary 
as  well  as  impolitic. 


64 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[64 


such  cases  may  be  traced  to  a  desire  to  suppress  immoral 
and  licentious  rites,  a  feeling  not  limited  to  the  Christians.^ 
Some  were  doubtless  due  to  the  necessity  of  replenishing 
Constantine's  notoriously  disordered  treasury,  though  Euse- 
bius  maintains  that  the  removal  of  gold,  silver  and  brass 
ornaments  and  coverings  of  statues  was  effected  in  order 
to  expose  the  bare  w^ood  to  the  derision  of  the  multitude.^ 
But  though  the  motive  was  avarice,  the  process  shows  no 
friendship  for  paganism.  Many  statues,  also,  and  other 
ornaments  were  removed  from  heathen  temples  for  the 
beautification  of  the  new  city  of  Constantinople.^  Not 
only  were  repairs  stopped  on  old  temples,  but  many  such 
buildings  must  have  been  demolished  and  their  materials 
used  for  other  purposes.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that 
the  emperor's  attitude  greatly  encouraged  the  process  of 
the  destruction  of  pagan  antiquity.*  Though  no  general 
law  for  the  destruction  of  pagan  temples  has  come  down 
to  us  from  this  time,  a  law  of  Constans  presupposes  the 
gradual  destruction  of  such  edifices  during  the  last  years  of 
Constantine's  reign.^ 

Constantine's  pro-Christian  and  anti-Pagan  policy,  how- 
ever, does  not  seem  to  have  been  so  pronounced  as  to  make 

^  Eg.,  the  shrine  of  the  heavenly  goddess  at  Aphaca  on  Lebanon  about 
330  (Eusebins,  Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  55)  ;  and  the  temple  at  Heliop- 
olis,  supplanted  by  a  church  liberally  supplied  with  almsmoney  (ibid., 
chap.  58). 

^  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  54  and  57,  copied  from  his  Ora- 
tion in  Praise  of  Constantine,  ch.  8.  It  may  be  noted  that  in  chapter 
54  Eusebius  says  this  was  done  not  by  military  force,  but  by  a  few  of 
the  emperor's  own  friends.    This  looks  like  m.ercenary  pillage. 

3  Cf.  infra,  pp.  65-66. 

*C/.  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  54-58;  cf.  Lanciani,  The  De- 
struction of  Pagan  Rome  (1903),  pp.  30  et  seq. 

5  Cod.  Theod.,  ix,  17,  Cf.  also  Eunapius,  Vita  Aedes,  37,  ed.,  Boise- 
sonade,  Amsterdam,  1822. 


65]        IMPERIAL  PATRONAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  65 

an  open  and  sharply-defined  break.  Eusebius  himself  after 
summarizing  his  legislation  for  the  relief  of  Christians  in 
the  west  between  312  and  323  adds,  "  But  his  munificence 
bestowed  still  further  and  more  numerous  favors  on  the 
heathen  peoples  and  the  other  nations  in  his  empire.  So 
that  the  inhabitants  of  our  regions  [the  East]  with  one 
consent  proclaimed  their  own  happiness,"  etc}  Pagans 
continued  in  the  court  of  Constantine  up  to  the  very  last^ 
Yet  a  story  has  been  preserved  of  a  heathen  philosopher, 
Kanonaris,  executed  for  persistent  denunciation  of  Con- 
stantine's  destruction  of  the  old  religion.*  We  are  told, 
also,  through  Eunapius,  Zosimus  and  Suidas,  concerning 
Sopater,  a  neoplatonist  friend  of  the  emperor's  or  possibly 
a  magician,  who  vv^as  executed  at  Constantinople  after  330. 
According  to  one  version  this  was  on  the  accusation  of 
keeping  back  by  magic  the  Egyptian  grain  ships.  It  ma}^ 
have  been  brought  about  by  a  court  intrigue  of  the  Chris- 
tian faction.* 

There  are  even  some  reports  of  pagan  elements  in  the 
buildings  and  dedicatory  exercises  of  Constantinople. 
Burckhardt  ^  has  emphasized  the  following:  Glycas  ^  tells 
of  an  astronomer  Valens  brought  there  to  cast  the  horo- 
scope of  the  new  city.  Sopater,  also,  is  said  to  have  per- 
formed mystic  symbols  as  a  magician."    There  are  also  re- 

^  Life  of  Constantine,  i\,  22. 

*  For  one  of  the  "  self-imagined  philosophers  " ;  cf.  Eusebius,  Life  of 
Constantine,  iv,  55. 

3  Burckhardt,  Zeit  Constantins  d.  G.,  p.  447,  on  basis  of  "Anonymus  " 
in  Banduri,  Imperium  orientale,  p.  98. 

*  Cf.  Zosimus,  ii,  40, 

^  Zeit  Constantins  d.  G.,  pp.  382,  480  ct  seq. 

^  Chronicle,  part  iv.  A  poor  source,  from  the  twelfth  century  or  later. 
^  This  on  basis  of  Joannes  Lydus,  De  Mensibus,  iv,  2. 


66  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [66 

ports  of  the  erection  of  heathen  temples  to  the  Divine 
Mother,  to  Castor  and  Pollux,  and  to  Tyche,  and  of  the 
performance  of  an  annual  ceremony  in  which  the  image  of 
Tyche  figured.^  On  the  face  of  the  evidence,  however,  the 
first  two  seem  very  uncertain,  while  the  temples  seem  to 
have  been  monumental  structures  built  to  hold  statuary, 
without  any  cults  connected  with  them,  and  the  ceremonies 
were  probably  without  any  religious  significance  whatever.^ 
The  friendliness  of  Christian  writers  to  Constantine  and 
the  hostility  of  subsequent  pagan  writers  is  of  itself  almost 
conclusive  evidence  that  he  took  his  stand  openly  with  the 
former.  That  he  had  some  pagan  panegyrists,  especially 
early  in  his  reign,  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
only  later  did  he  assume  Christianity,  and  then  only  gradu- 
ally.^ That  there  was  little  or  no  specifically  pagan  oppo- 
sition to  him  during  his  life  is  explained  by  the  fact  that 
pagan  leaders  do  not  seem  to  have  been  aware  that  the  issue 
between  the  two  religions  was  being  permanently  decided 
in  that  generation.  It  could  not  have  been  seen  until  the 
reign  of  Julian  that  the  attitude  of  one  emperor  could  be  so 
decisive  or  that  a  future  restoration  of  paganism  was  for- 
ever out  of  the  question.  Diocletian's  persecution  had  not 
only  failed  to  destroy  the  church,  but  it  had  failed  to  per- 
suade earnest  supporters  of  pagan  religions  that  Christian- 
ity was  dangerous  to  them.  However,  with  Julian's  unsuc- 
cessful attempt  to  turn  the  tide  back  to  paganism,  there 
came  a  change  so  noticeable  that  Bury  uses  it  as  one  basis 

^  On  the  basis  of  Zosimus,  ii,  31;  Philostorgius,  ii,  17;  Sozomen,  v,  4, 
and  Chronicon  Paschale,  ad.  ann.  330. 

2C/.  Grisar,  Zeitsch.  f.  Kath.  TheoL,  vi  (1882),  pp.  587  et  seq.,  and 
Strzygowski  in  A?ialecta  Graeciensia  (Graz.,  1893). 

'  Cf.  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  23,  47. 


6;]        IMPERIAL  PATRONAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  67 

for  determining  the  date  of  pagan  writings/  Those  who 
were  most  in  earnest  about  paganism  were  thereafter  apt 
to  be  bitter  toward  Constantine,  even  to  the  extent  of 
maligning  and  slandering  him. 

5.  Constantine' s  Activity  in  Church  Affairs,  and  his  Motives 

The  friendliness  of  Christian  writers  toward  Constan- 
tine is  so  evident  that  it  needs  no  proof  nor  comment  Euse- 
bius,  and  his  successors,  united  in  extolling  Constantine 
not  only  as  the  first  Christian  emperor,  but  as  their  deliv- 
erer and  their  divinely  sent  prince.  None  ventured  upon 
serious  criticism  of  him,  and,  in  Christian  writings,  even 
the  most  harmless  suggestion  of  any  imperfection  in  him 
was  usually  veiled  by  reference  to  the  evil  influence  of 
others.^ 

We  may  conclude,  then,  that  imperial  patronage  as  well 
as  the  legislative  power  of  the  emperor  was  exerted  in- 
creasingly in  favor  of  the  Christians,  and  that  the  total 
effect  of  his  reign  was  an  overwhelming  asset  to  the  church. 
Acts  and  tendencies  to  the  contrary  were  only  incidental  to 
a  gradual  change  in  that  direction  and  to  the  natural  sur- 
vival of  earlier  conditions.  Such,  beyond  reasonable  doubt 
was  the  retention  by  him  until  his  death,  and  indeed  by 
his  immediate  successors,  of  the  title  Pontifex  Maximus, 
which  designated  the  emperor  as  honorary  head  of  the  old 
official  religions. 

The  spirit  or  purpose  dominant  in  this  use  of  imperial 
power  and  patronage  is  not  altogether  clear,  important  as 
this  is  for  the  understanding  of  the  history  of  the  church. 
Of  two  such  authoritative  historians  as  Seeck  and  Ed. 
Schwartz,  the  former  exhibits  Constantine  as  dominated 

^  Cf.  his  edition  of  Gibbon,  Decline  and  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
ii,  appendix  i,  p.  534,  under  Praxagoras. 
'  Cf.  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  29,  31. 


68 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[68 


by  religious  or  superstitious  motives  and  by  those  whom  he 
looked  upon  as  representatives  of  the  divine  power,^  the 
latter  speaks  of  the  sovereign  high-handedness  with  which 
he  ruled  the  church.^  Neither  extreme  is  warranted.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  the  first  Christian  emperor  sought  to  use 
the  church  organization  for  any  political  ends  or  to  impose 
upon  it  any  task  alien  to  its  own  conception  of  its  ends. 
The  evidence  that  he  devoted  resources  of  the  state  to  the 
support  of  the  church  is  abundant;  there  is  none  that  he 
used  even  the  moral  resources  of  the  church  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  crown.  Statements  to  the  latter  effect  are 
merely  inferences,  and  for  the  most  part  based  on  a  priori 
reasoning.  And  yet  Constantine  was  far  from  putting 
himself  unreservedly  under  the  control  of  the  church  lead- 
ers. His  attitude  towaTd_lhe^whole_sit^^  a 
statesman^  not  that_jQf-.,a,_fariatix:.    Nor  did  he,  appar- 


ently loolTupon  the  church  organization  as  an  institution 
superior  to,  and  independent  of,  the  imperial  power.  He 
took  an  active  part  in  its  management.^  The  chief  interest 
he  displayed  on  this  score  was  that  the  ecclesiastical  ma- 
chinery should  run  smoothl}^  and  that  the  cult  of  the  su- 
preme God,  the  God  who  gave  victory,  should  be  main- 
tained in  full  efficiency. 

Shortly  after  he  was  established  in  control  of  the  West 
he  took  a  hand  in  the  troubles  in  Africa  out  of  w^hich  the 

^  Seeck  throughout  represents  Constantine  as  unselfish  and  not  at  all 
ambitious.  He  even  expounds  his  military  career  on  the  basis  that  he 
tried  his  utmost  to  uphold  Diocletian's  system  of  governing  the  em- 
pire, that  he  had  no  desire  to  increase  his  own  power  or  territory,  and 
that  all  his  wars  were  defensive.  Cf.  Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt,  i,  p. 
112,  et  passim.  This  preposterous  proposition  I  can  explain  only  as  an 
extreme  reaction  against  Burckhardt's  exposition  of  Constantine  as  the 
embodiment  of  unscrupulous  ambition,  and  as  an  instance  of  Seeck's 
habit  of  assuming  a  motive  for  his  characters  and  then  construing 
everything  in  accordance  with  that  motive. 

2  Kaiser  Constantin  und  die  christliche  Kirche,  p.  70. 

3  Eg.  cf.  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  46. 


69]        IMPERIAL  PATROXAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  69 

Donatist  schism  developed.  He  gave  his  support  from 
the  first  to  the  regular  organization/  but  submitted  matters 
in  dispute  to  Miltiades,  bishop  of  Rome,  and  three  of  his 
colleagues  from  Gaul.^  In  this  and  in  some  subsequent 
matters  Constantine  employed  the  bishop  of  Rome  in  the 
West  as  a  kind  of  secretary  of  state  for  Christian  affairs,^ 
and  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  growing  power  of  the 
Roman  see.  When  the  vindication  which  Caecilian,  the 
regular  bishop,  received  from  this  Roman  tribunal  failed 
to  quiet  the  African  disturbance,  the  emperor  convoked  the 
famous  Synod  of  Aries  (314)  which  also  condemned  the 
schismatics  and  took  advantage  of  the  occasion  to  draw 
up  various  rules  for  church  discipline.*  As  the  schism, 
instead  of  subsiding,  grew  in  violence,  Constantine  tried  to 
settle  it  himself  by  summoning  leaders  of  the  two  factions 
and  hearing  them  in  person.  Deciding  in  favor  of  Caecil- 
ian, he  sent  commissioners  to  restore  peace  in  Africa, 
meanwhile  retaining  these  contestants  in  Italy.  They  es- 
caped to  Carthage,  however,  and  the  struggle  continued. 
For  a  while  Constantine  tried  forcible  expulsion  of  the 
Donatists  from  churches,  but  later  gave  this  up  and  con- 
tented himself  with  stating  his  disapproval  of  the  schis- 
matics and  urging  the  Catholic  leaders  to  have  patience.^ 

'  (7/.  letters  in  Eusebiiis,  Church  History,  x,  5,  15-17;  x,  6,  1-5;  x, 
7,  1-2. 

^  Ibid.,  X,  5.  18-20.  Fifteen  Italian  bishops  were  later  joined  to  these 
four. 

'  The  phrase  is  from  George  Finlay,  History  of  the  Byzantine  Empire, 
Book  I,  iii,  sec.  3. 

*  C/.  letters  of  Constantine:  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  x,  5,  21-24,  and  Migne, 
Patrologia  Latina,  vol.  viii,  p.  487.  Cf.  also  the  Sylloge  Optatiana,  in 
the  Vienna  Corpus  Scriptorum  Ecclesiasticorum  Latinorum,  vol.  xxvi, 
p.  206.    Seeck,  dates  the  council,  316,  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  x,  509. 

^  For  a  clear  discussion  of  this  procedure  with  references  to  sources, 
cf.  Duchesne.  Histoire  ancienne  de  I'Eglise,  Eng.  trans.  Early  History 
of  the  Church,  vol.  ii,  pp.  92-97. 


yo  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [70 

Constantine's  participation  in  the  next  great  ecclesiastical 
controversy  of  his  reign,  the  Arian  trouble,  ran  a  course 
somewhat  parallel  to  the  preceding.  The  conflict  was  in 
full  blast  at  Alexandria  when  Constantine  gained  control 
of  the  East.  He  tried  by  letters,  carried  in  person  by 
Hosius  to  Bishop  Alexander  and  to  Arius,  to  induce  them 
to  restore  peace  by  mutual  toleration  of  differences  of  opin- 
ion.^ This  failing,  and  in  view,  also,  of  a  widespread  dif- 
ference in  the  time  of  the  observance  of  Easter,  Constan- 
tine proceeded  to  summon  a  great  council  at  Nicea.  The 
bishop  of  Rome,  so  far  as  we  know,  did  not  figure  in  the 
preliminaries  of  the  council.  There  was  no  one  in  the  East 
holding  a  central  position  corresponding  to  his,  so  Con- 
stantine assumed  immediate  direction  of  the  affair.  At  the 
first  session  of  the  council  he  made  his  entrance  in  state, 
and  replied  in  a  set  speech  to  the  oration  of  thanksgiving 
with  which  he  was  addressed.^  He  followed  the  de- 
bates and  occasionally  took  part  in  the  discussion.  The 
decisions  of  the  council  both  as  to  the  proper  date 
for  observing  Easter,  to  which  the  emperor  himself  at- 
tached most  importance,  and  as  to  the  doctrinal  questions 
raised  by  the  Arian  controversy  were  confirmed  by  im- 
perial letters.^    The  further  course  of  the  controversy  also 

*  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  63-73 ;  giving  a  copy  of  the  long 
letters. 

2  For  the  part  taken  by  Constantine  in  the  proceedings  of  the  council, 
cf.  Realencyklop'ddie  filr  prot.  Theol.  und  Kirche,  xiv,  12,  30-45. 

•  Such,  substantially,  is  Eusebius'  account.  Cf.  Life  of  Constantine, 
iii,  6-23 ;  also  i,  44.  This  is  the  most  important  contemporary  descrip- 
tion, but  tells  little  about  the  debates,  about  the  course  by  which  de- 
cisions were  reached,  or  even  about  the  decisions  themselves.  The 
literature  on  the  Council  of  Nicea  is  extensive,  and  important  points 
are  still  obscure.  Duchesne's  account,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  98-124,  gives 
clearly  the  generally  accepted  version,  if  indeed  there  may  be  said  to  be 
such  a  thing. 


71  ]        IMPERIAL  PATRONAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  yi 

substantiates  Eusebius'  comparison  of  Constantine  to  a 
"  general  bishop  constituted  of  God."  ^  But  it  is  not  nec- 
essary here  to  go  into  the  temporary  success  of  the  Arian 
reaction,  the  recall  of  Arius  from  banishment,  and  the 
first  triumph  of  Athanasius'  enemies,  resulting  in  his  exile 
and  imprisonment  at  Treves.  Constantine,  while  hope- 
lessly at  sea  as  to  the  theological  aspects  of  the  contro- 
versy, controlled  the  proceedings  and  gave  preponderance 
to  those  whom  he  favored,  and  exile  to  those  whom  he 
condemned.^ 

Constantine  did  not  succeed  in  stifling  ecclesiastical  con- 
troversy by  government  pressure.  But  he  undoubtedly 
contributed  to  the  realization  of  the  purpose  for  which  he 
labored,  the  unity  of  the  church  in  the  support  of  the  cultus 
of  the  Supreme  God.  His  dictum,  whatsoever  is  deter- 
mined in  the  holy  assemblies  of  the  bishops  is  to  be  regarded 
as  indicative  of  the  divine  will,"  ^  involved  in  his  mind 
the  co-operation  of  state  and  church  in  winning  and  keep- 
ing the  favor  of  this  Supreme  God,  the  bestower  of  all  suc- 
cess. It  however  involved  also  the  subsequent  development 
of  a  state  church  with  intriguing  bishops,  an  iron  organi- 
zation and  thought-confining  dogma  linked  to  a  military 
absolutism.* 

^  Op.  cit.,  I,  44. 

^  Our  chief,  but  by  no  means  our  only,  source  of  information  on  these 
matters  is  the  writings  of  Athanasius.  For  a  modern  account  based 
largely  on  these  writings,  and  judiciously  favorable  to  their  author,  cf. 
Duchesne,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  125-152.  For  an  account  almost  bitterly  hostile 
to  Athanasius,  and  extremely  distrustful  of  his  statements,  cf.  Seeck, 
Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt,  vol.  iii,  pp.  431,  et  passim. 

'  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  iii,  20. 

*  Cf.  Ed.  Schwartz,  Kaiser  Constatitin  u.  d.  christliche  Kirche,  pp. 
169-171. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  "  CONVERSION  "  OF  CONSTANTINE,  AND  THE  RELIGIOUS 
REVOLUTION  OF  HIS  TIME 

I.  Various  Early  Accounts 

CoNSTANTiNE  Came  into  direct  contact  with  the  East 
as  emperor  only  after  his  final  triumph  over  Licinius.  His 
reign  henceforth,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  only  favorable 
to  the  Christians,  but  was  essentially  the  reign  of  a  Chris- 
tian sovereign.  It  was  in  this  capacity  that  the  historian 
Eusebius,  who  lived  in  Palestine,  first  came  to  fully  know 
him.  It  was  very  natural,  therefore,  that  Eusebius  in  his 
Church  History,  which  he  wrote  during  and  almost  imme- 
diately after  Constantine's  rise  to  power,^  should  assume 
that  Constantine  had  been  a  Christian  from  the  beginning 
of  his  career.^  Throughout  the  work  there  is  no  word  of 
a  conversion  of  Constantine,  of  any  miraculous  vision  in- 
strumental in  the  process,  or  of  any  need  of  his  being  con- 
verted at  all.  On  the  contrary,  it  tells  how,  before  the 
campaign  against  Maxentius  in  312,  he  "took  compassion 
upon  those  who  were  oppressed  at  Rome  [the  Christians 
under  Maxentius],  and  having  invoked  in  prayer  the  God 
of  heaven,  and  his  Word,  and  Jesus  Christ  himself,  the 
Saviour  of  all,  as  his  aid,  advanced  with  his  whole  army, 
proposing  to  restore  to  the  Romans  their  ancestral  lib- 

^  For  the  dates  of  the  various  parts  of  the  Church  Historj^  cf.  the 
critical  apparatus  of  the  edition  of  Schwartz  and  Mommsen. 
2  viii,  13,  14;  ix,  9,  2;  3;  9-1 1. 

72  [72 


THE  "CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE  73 

erty."  ^  Eusebius'  later  version  of  the  matter,  which  he 
gives  in  his  Life  of  Constantine,  written  some  fifteen  or 
twenty  years  after  the  passage  quoted  above,  is  quite  dif- 
ferent. It  contains  a  description  of  the  emperor's  sudden 
conversion  by  a  miraculous  apparition  in  the  heavens  inter- 
preted the  following  night  in  a  dream.  This  episode  will 
be  discussed  later ;  ^  but  the  question  whether  a  sudden  con- 
version of  some  sort  or  other  took  place  must  be  consid- 
ered here.  Legends  from  pagan  sources,  as  well  as  Euse- 
bius' Life  of  Constantine,  incorporate  the  view  that  the 
emperor  underwent  such  an  experience.  The  sources  of 
information  examined  in  our  previous  chapters  do  not  point 
to  such  a  conclusion,  but  we  may  well  look  into  other  evi- 
dence. 

2.  C onstantine" s  Early  Paganism 

Constantine  apparently  identified  himself  with  paganism 
during  the  time  he  ruled  north  of  the  Alps  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  his  father,  Constantius.  Eusebius'  early  opinion 
to  the  contrary  is  discredited  not  only  by  his  later  contra- 
diction of  it,  but  by  his  remoteness  from  Gaul.^  That  he, 
following  in  his  father's  footsteps,  extended  toleration  to 
the  Christians  is  certain;  but  various  pagan  emperors  had 
previously  done  the  same.  This  is  no  proof  that  he  himself 
entertained  Christian  views.  That  his  father  was  a  Chris- 
tian and  conducted  his  household  as  such  is  implied  in 
Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine;  *  but  this  is,  on  such  a  point, 
questionable  authority,  and  the  particular  passages  con- 

^Ihid.,  ix,  9,  2.  It  will  be  noted  that  this  marks  the  inception  of  the 
campaign,  and  that  the  opening  engagements  of  the  war  follow  it  in 
paragraph  three. 

-  Cf.  infra,  p.  135  et  seq. 

2  The  addresses  in  Lactantius'  Div.  Inst,  implying  that  Constantine 
was  a  Christian  in  311  or  earlier,  have  been  shown  to  be  interpolations. 
Cf.  Brandt's  ed.  in  CSEL.  xix,  668. 

*  i,  16-18;  ii,  49;  this  latter  purporting  to  quote  Constantine. 


74  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [74 

cerned  are  unquestionably  highly  overdrawn/  Some  slight 
evidence  in  support  of  Eusebius'  eulogy  there  may  be  in 
the  fact  that  Constantius  gave  one  of  his  daughters,  Con- 
stantine's  sister,  what  seems  to  be  a  specifically  Christian 
name,  Anastasia  (Resurrection),  though  in  any  case  this 
name  may  have  been  proposed  by  a  Christian  mother.^ 
Eusebius  himself,  however,  in  his  Church  History,  speaks 
of  Constantius'  being  ranked  by  his  subjects  among 
the  gods  and  receiving  after  death  every  honor  which 
one  could  pay  an  emperor.^  Lack  of  substantial  evi- 
dence for  Constantius'  being  a  Christian,  leads  one 
to  accept  the  general  opinion  that,  while  probably  a 
devout  monotheist  and  certainly  tolerant  toward  the  Chris- 
tians, he  was  not  himself  one  of  them.  As  for  Con- 
stantine  in  Gaul,  the  only  local  and  strictly  contemporary 
evidence  we  possess  is  found  in  the  panegyrics  of  Eumenius 
and  an  anonymous  orator,  generally  identified  as  Nazarius. 
Eulogistic  orators  are  not  unimpeachable  historical  sources, 
but  these  two  take  at  least  relatively  high  rank  among  those 
who  spoke  in  honor  of  Constantine.  Eumenius  was  one  of 
the  foremost  scholars  of  his  time,  the  head  of  a  consider- 
able literary  circle  at  Autun,  in  Gaul,,  and  enjoying  the  per- 
sonal and  financial  support  of  the  emperor.*  His  pane- 
gyrics, and  the  anonymous  one  referred  to  above,  show  de- 
tailed familiarity  with  Constantine's  career  in  Gaul.  There 
is  no  reason  for  questioning  their  statements  about  his  re- 

^  For  discussion  of  the  reliability  of  Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine, 
cf.  infra,  pp.  107  et  seq. 

'  Cf.  on  this  Se.eck,  Untergang  d.  antik.  Welt,  i,  pp.  61,  473. 

^viii,  13,  12.  The  remoteness  of  Eusebius  from  the  West  would  not 
invalidate  his  statements  about  such  official  matters  to  the  same  extent 
as  it  would  his  statements  about  the  personal  religious  convictions  of  a 
Western  ruler. 

*  For  a  modern  account  of  the  school  at  Autun,  cf.  G.  Block,  in  La- 
visse's  Histoire  de  France,  vol.  i,  part  ii  (1900). 


75] 


THE  ''CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE 


ligious  affiliations,  for  paneg>Tists,  even  though  they  were 
otherwise  untrustworthy,  could  be  relied  upon  not  to  offend 
the  convictions  of  the  subject  of  their  praise.  What  they 
have  to  say  about  their  prince's  religion,  furthermore,  is 
told  incidentally,  as  patent  fact,  not  as  argument  or  proof, 
but  as  basis  for  obviously  acceptable  praise.  Both  orators 
represent  Constantine  as  a  devout  pagan  of  monotheistic 
belief. 

Eumenius,  in  a  panegyric  delivered  in  310,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  his  royal  patron,  refers  to  a  visit  of  the  latter  to 
the  Apollo  temple  at  Autun  before  a  renewed  attack  upon 
the  Franks,  and  proceeds  to  extol  the  divine  qualities  of 
the  young  ruler,  and  to  recite  the  favor  of  A_pollo  to  him. 
"  For  thou  sawest,  I  believe,  thine  Apollo,  accompanied  by 
Victory,  offering  thee  the  laurel  crowns."  "  Now  all  tem- 
ples seem  to  call  thee  to  themselves,  especially  our  Apollo, 
in  whose  seething  waters  perjuries,  which  thou  must  have 
hated  most  of  all,  are  punished."  "  Immortal  gods,  when 
will  you  grant  that  day  on  w^hich  this  god  most  manifest, 
universal  peace  restored,  may  go  about  among  those  groves 
of  Apollo  himself,  and  among  the  sacred  abodes,  and  the 
breathing  mouths  of  the  springs.  .  .  .  Thou  wilt  assuredly 
marvel  at  that  abode  of  thy  very  divinity."  ^    The  orator 

^Panegyric  310,  chaps.  20,  21,  22;  in  Pan.  Vet.,  no.  vii,  and  in  Migne, 
P.  L.,  viii,  col.  637  et  seq. 

"  Ipsa  hoc  si  ordinante  fortuna,  ut  te  ibi  rerum  tuarum  felicitas  admo- 
neret,  diis  immortalibus,  ferre  quae  voveras,  ubi  deflexisses  ad  tem- 
plum  [of  Apollo]  toto  orbe  pulcherrimum,  imo  ad  praesentem,  ut  veniste, 
deum.  Vidisti  enim,  credo,  Constantine,  Appollinem  tuum,  comitante 
victoria,  coronas  tibi  laureas  offerentem,"  etc.  "Jam  omnia  te  vocare 
ad  se  templa  videantur,  praecipueque  Apollo  noster.  cujus  ferventibus 
aquis  perjuria  puniuntur,  quae  te  maxime  oportet  odisse." 

"  Dii  immortales,  quando  ilium  dabitis  diem,  quo  praesentissimus  hie 
deus  omni  pace  composita,  illos  quoque  Apollinis  lucos  et  sacres  sedes  et 
anhela  fontium  ora  circumeat.  .  .  .  Miraberis  profecto  illam  quoque 
numinis  tui  sedem,"  etc. 


76  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [76 

closes  with  a  delicately  worded,  but  urgent  suggestion  that 
Constantine  repair  the  public  buildings  and  especially  the 
temple  of  Autun.  The  formal  thanks  of  that  city  for  its 
restoration  and  for  the  grant  of  the  imperial  name,  Augus- 
todunum,  presented  to  Constantine  by  Eumenius  in  the 
panegyric  of  the  following  year,  show  that  the  allusions  to 
Apollo  were  not  ungrateful. 

The  whole  episode  is  reinforced  by  a  reference  in  Julian's 
Orations  ^  to  a  special  Helios  cult  of  Constantine's,  by 
Eumenius'  emphasis  upon  his  relation  to  Apollo,  and  by 
the  frequency  of  the  tokens  of  the  Sun-god  ^  on  Constan- 
tine's coinage. 

The  anonymous  panegyric  of  313,  usually  attributed  to 
Nazarius,^  informs  us  that  Constantine  invaded  Italy  to 
fight  Maxentius  against  the  advice  of  men,  and  the  warn- 
ings of  soothsayers  ("contra  consilia  hominum,  contra 
Haruspicum  monita"),  showing  that  he  had  consulted  the 
omens.  This  oration  was  delivered  after  the  return  of 
Constantine  to  Gaul  from  his  victory  over  Maxentius,  and 
perhaps  the  effect  of  that  campaign  *  upon  the  religious 
ideas  of  Constantine  are  reflected  in  the  questioning  mono- 
theism of  the  orator  in  his  peroration.'^ 

1  Oration,  vii,  p.  228  D  (ed.  Hertlein). 

2  Apollo,  Mithras,  "  Soli  Invicti  Comiti." 

^Incerti  Paneg.  Constantino  Augusto,  313,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  especi- 
ally col.  655,  chap.  ii.    Cf.  also,  supra,  p.  36;  infra,  p.  132,  n.  i. 
Cf.  infra,  pp.  77-79. 

^  Ibid.,  chap.  26,  Quemobrem  te  [Jove],  summe  sator,  cujus  tot 
nomina  sunt,  quot  gentium  linguas  esse  voluisti,  quern  enim  te  ipse  dici 
velis  scire  non  possumus  :  sive  in  te  quaedam  vis  mensque  divina  est, 
qua  toto  infusus  omnibus  miscearis  dementis,  et  sine  ullo  extrin- 
secus  accedente  vigoris  impulsu  per  te  ipse  movearis :  sive  aliqua  supra 
omne  coelum  potestas  es,  quae  hoc  opus  tuum  exaltiore  naturae  arce 
despicias :  te,  inquam,  oramus  et  quaesumus,"  etc. 

For  light  upon  this  whole  subject  from  another  angle,  cf.  infra,  pp. 
T31-132  et  seq. 


77] 


THE  "CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE 


77 


3.  Campaign  against  Maxentius,  and  Adoption  of  Christian 

Labarum 

In  this  campaign  against  Maxentius  there  took  place  an 
episode  which  an  early  Christian  legend  fixed  upon  as  the 
definite  conversion  of  Constantine  to  Christianity/  Mod- 
ern historians  have  occasionally  denied  the  occurrence  of 
the  episode,  and  looked  upon  it  as  merely  the  later  invention 
of  the  emperor  or  of  his  pious  biographers.  There  seems, 
however,  to  be  no  reason  for  rejecting  the  simple  and 
straight-forward  account  of  the  narrator  of  the  earliest  ver- 
sion of  it  which  has  come  down  to  us.  Lactantius  (Lucius 
Caelius  Firmianus)  was  for  some  years  a  member  of  Con- 
stantine's  household  and  the  tutor  of  his  son  Crispus."  In 
his  De  Mortibiis  Persecutoriim  he  says  that  "  Constantine 
[encamped  in  the  neighborhood  of  Rome,  opposite  the 
Milvian  bridge]  was  directed  in  a  dream  to  cause  the 
heavenly  sign  to  be  delineated  on  the  shields  of  his  soldiers, 

*  A  pagan  legend  dated  the  conversion  much  later.  On  this,  cf.  infra, 
pp.  127  et  seq. 

'  I  think  we  are  on  safe  ground  now  in  accepting  Lactantius'  author- 
ship of  the  De  Mortibus  Perseciitorum.  Cf.  R.  Pichon,  Lactance 
(Paris,  1901),  pp.  337-360;  Harnack,  Die  Chronologie  der  altchristlichen 
Litteratur,  vol,  ii  (Leipsic,  IQ04),  pp.  421  et  seq.;  O.  Bardenhewer, 
Patrologie  (Freiburg,  1910),  p.  181 ;  Monceaux,  Histoire  litteraire  de 
I' Africa  chretienne  depuis  Ics  origines  jiisqu'd  I'invasion  arabe,  vol.  iii 
(Paris,  1905),  pp.  340-342,  Brandt,  one  of  the  greatest  authorities  upon 
Lactantius,  attempted  to  prove  what  had  often  been  surmised  before, 
that  the  book  is  by  an  imitator  of  Lactantius,  in  "  Ueber  die  Entste- 
hungsverhaltnisse  der  Prosaschriften  des  Lact.  u.  des  Buches  de  morti- 
bus persecutorum,"  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  Wiener  Akad.,  vol.  cxxv, 
Abh.  vi  (1892),  but  his  case  now  seems  definitely  lost.  For  an  excellent, 
brief  summary  of  the  matter,  see  Bury,  in  his  edition  of  Gibbon's  De- 
cline and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire  (1896),  vol.  ii,  pp.  531-533.  For 
the  life  of  Lactantius,  see  Brandt,  "  Ueber  das  Leben  des  Lact.,"  in 
Sitzungsberichte  der  Wiener  Akad.,  vol.  cxx  (1890). 

The  De  Mortibus  Persecutorum,  in  any  case,  must  have  been  written 
soon  after  313. 


78  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


and  so  to  proceed  to  battle.    He  did  as  he  had  been  com- 
manded, and  he  marked  on  their  shields  the  letter  X, 
with  a  perpendicular  line  drawn  through  it  and  turned 
round  thus  at  the  top,  being  the  cipher  of  Christ, 
Having  this  sign,  his  troops  stood  to  arms."  ^ 

In  this  account  there  is  nothing  said  about  a  miraculous 
vision  or  about  Constantine  being  converted  to  Christianity. 
All  that  the  author  tells  is  that  in  a  dream  the  promise  of 
victory  was  associated  with  the  use  of  the  monogram  of 
Christ,  and  that  the  event  turned  out  as  the  dream  foretold. 
The  dream  itself  is,  of  course,  not  susceptible  of  historical 
proof,  but  Constantine's  use  of  the  monogram  of  Christ's 
name,  for  the  first  time,  during  this  campaign,  and  his  use 
of  it  thereafter,  is  supported  by  abundant  evidence.^  '  Its  use 
in  the  first  instance  may  have  come  as  well  from  a  dream 
as  from  anything  else.  That  political  or  military  consid- 
erations could  scarcely  have  led  him  to  take  this  step,  and 
that  they  could  not  have  played  any  large  part  in  Constan- 
tine's adoption  of  Christianity,  is  clearly  proved  by  Seeck.^ 

^  Chap.  44. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  47,  infra,  pp.  79-81 ;  and  in  addition  to  Eusebius'  reiter- 
ated statements,  Lactantius,  de  Mort.  Persec,  chap.  44;  Prudentius,  In 
Symmachum,  ii,  lines  464-486.  Also  many  coins  and  medals.  For  the 
monogram  on  helmets,  see  Numismatic  Chronicle,  1877,  pp.  44  et  seq., 
plate  i  (article  by  Madden,  "Christian  Emblems,"  etc.).  A  labarum 
containing  the  Christian  emblems  was  probably  long  after  deposited  in 
the  palace  at  Constantinople,  Cod.  Theod.,  vi,  25;  Theophanes, 
Chronogr.,  p.  11.  For  some  other  evidence,  see  Schultze,  Zeitsch.  f. 
K.  G.,  xiv  (1894),  pp.  521  et  seq. 

^Deutsche  Rundschau,  April,  1891,  pp.  73-84,  and  repeatedly  in  his 
Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt.  The  Christians  constituted  a  very  small, 
almost  negligible  part  of  the  army  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  had  as  yet 
taken  no  part  in  politics.  Italy  was  predominantly  pagan,  and  Rome 
especially  so.  There  could  have  been  no  inherent  military  or  political 
advantage  in  displaying  Christian  emblems  there.  Cf.  also  Fedele  Savio, 
La  Conversione  di  Costantino  Magno  e  la  Chiesa  all'  inizio  del  secolo 
iv,  in  La  Civilta  Cattolica,  1913,  vol.  i,  pp.  385-397. 


79]  THE  "CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE  79 

That  some  curious  natural  phenomena  in  the  heavens  may- 
have  impressed  the  contestant  for  Italy  and  led  to  the  use  of 
the  cross  is  possible,  but  hardly  meets  the  requirements  of 
any  of  our  sources.  /Eusebius'  detailed  account  of  a 
heavenly  apparition  is  followed  by  a  reference  to  a  dream 
the  following  night,  and  this  is  to  some  extent  a  corrobor- 
ation of  Lactantius.  Where  the  former  goes  beyond  the 
latter,  we  have  merely  an  instance  of  legend-making 
powers  at  work/ 

All  that  the  incident  involves,  then,  was  the  association 
of  victory  with  the  use  of  the  wonderful  monogram. /^t 
was  a  superstitious  age,  and  Constantine  in  fact  used  the 
labarum  bearing  this  monogram,  and  the  monogram  itself, 
as  a  magical  charm,  a  fetich^  For  him  and  for  the  Chris- 
tians generally,  including  their  bishops,  divine  power  re- 
sided in  it;  its  use  brought  success  and  good  luck.  By  it 
Constantine  probably  felt  that  he  prevailed  over  his  ene- 
mies. What  he  adopted  before  the  battle  of  the  Milvian 
Bridge,  was  not  Christianity  but  a  luck  token."  The  cross 
had  by  this  time  become  generally  used  by  Christians  as  a 
magic  sign  before  which  demons  fled.^  Constantine  used 
both  the  monogram  of  Christ  and  the  cross.  It  is  often 
difficult  in  reading  the  accounts  of  Eusebius  and  later 
waiters  to  tell  to  which  of  the  two  they  refer. 

The  monogram  >£;  had  not  always  been  an  exclusively 
Christian  sign;  it  was  used  on  oriental  banners  in  pre- 
Christian  times,  probably  as  one  of  the  many  symbols  of 

1  Cf.  infra,  p.  135  et  seq. 

^Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  31;  ii,  6-7;  ii,  16;  Oration  in  Praise 
of  Constantine,  chap.  6,  21 ;  chap.  9;  chap.  10.  Many  of  these  passages 
embody  fetichism  pure  and  simple. 

3  Lactantius,  Diz'ine  Institutes,  iv,  27;  De  Mort.  Persecut.,  chap.  10. 
For  earher  accusation  that  Christians  worshiped  the  cross,  see  Tertul- 
lian.  Apology,  chap.  16,  and  Ad  Nationes,  1,  13. 


8o  CONSTANTINE  AXD  CHRISTIANITY  [go 

the  sun.^  It  appears  on  coins  in  the  late  third,  in  the  sec- 
ond, and  the  first  centuries  before  Christ.^  But  it  is  ap- 
parent that  Constantine's  Christian  friends  regarded  it  as 
an  emblem  of  their  religion.  We  have  no  evidence  that  his 
pagan  contemporaries  regarded  his  use  of  it  as  indicating 
adherence  to  the  sun-god.^ 

The  cross  also  was  used  symbolically  by  others  than  the 
Christians.  It  has  been,  among  various  peoples,  a  com- 
mon object  in  nature  worship.*  Early  Christian  writers 
speak  of  its  recurrence  in  nature  and  of  its  general  sym- 
bolism apart  from  their  own  religion.^  It  was  in  such  uni- 
versal use  among  the  Christians,  howxver,  as  a  religious 
token  and  sign  of  magic  power  that  by  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine  it  must  have  been  regarded  almost  as  their  prop- 
erty.°  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  for  Eusebius  it  was  a 
symbol  of  immortality  rather  than  a  token  of  Christ's  sacri- 
ficial or  vicarious  death.' 

That  a  great  general  would  expect  divine  help  through 
using  a  symbol,  that  he  would  attribute  his  victory  to  a 

*  Cf.  Zalin,  Constantine  d.  Grosse  u.  die  Kirche,  p.  14. 

-  Rapp,  "Das  Labarum  u.  der  Sonnenkultus,"  in  Jahrbiich  des  Vereins 
von  Altertiimsfrennden  im  Rheinlande,  1866,  pp.  166  et  seq. 

3  Bury  is  a  little  over-cautious  in  his  statement :  "  It  is  not  clear  that 
Constantine  used  it  as  an  ambiguous  symbol,  nor  yet  is  there  a  well- 
attested  instance  of  its  use  as  a  Christian  symbol  before  A.  D.  323  {cf. 
Brieger,  in  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  iv  (1881),  p.  201)." 

*  It  was  commented,  for  instance,  that  it  was  one  of  the  emblems  in 
the  Tem.ple  of  Serapis  at  Alexandria  at  the  time  that  temple  was  de- 
stroyed.   Sozomen,  vii,  15;  Socrates,  v,  17. 

^Justin  Martyr,  First  Apology,  chaps.  Iv,  Ix ;  Tertullian,  Apology, 
xvi;  Ad  Nationes,  i,  13. 

^  Cf.  references,  supra;  also  Tertullian,  De  Corona,  3. 

Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  \,  32,  and  elsewhere  when  he  men- 
tions the  cross. 


8l]  THE  "CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE  gl 

divine  monogram,  is  difficult  for  us  to  realize  to-day,  but 
as  Seeck  and  others  have  shown,  it  was  very  natural  in  the 
fourth  century.  It  was  much  more  natural  than  free- 
thinking  and  absence  of  superstitious  considerations.  The 
clear-minded  man  who,  himself  uninfluenced  by  religious 
forces  or  fears  of  supernatural  power,  used  these  for  the 
ends  of  his  own  ambition,  as  Constantine  is  sometimes 
assumed  to  have  done,  would  have  been  the  exception  at 
that  time,  if  not  an  impossibility.^  Lactantius  apparently 
believed  that  Licinius,  who  was  not  of  that  author's  religion, 
was  taught  in  a  dream  by  an  angel  a  magic  formula  in  the 
shape  of  a  vague  monotheistic  prayer,  which,  repeated  in 
the  presence  of  the  enemy,  insured  victory.^ 

4.  Constantine' s  Christianity 

Having  adopted  the  magical  symbol  of  the  Christian 
God,  and  finding  it  successful,  Constantine  pursued  this 
primitive  allegiance  to  its  logical  end.  He  favored  the 
church  which  represented  this  God,  and  allied  himself  more 
and  more  with  its  officers  and  its  teachings.  /His  conver- 
sion was  thus  a  gradual  process  extending  from  the  war 
with  Maxentius,  or  earlier,  and  ending  only  with  his  last 
illness. ;  Certain  episodes  mark  the  stages  of  this  develop- 
ment; the  victory  over  Maxentius,  the  attainment  of  sole 
emperorship  by  the  victory  over  Licinius,""'  and  probably 
also  the  Council  of  Nicea.  In  the  first  two  cases  the  decid- 
ing factor  was  the  success  with  which  the  Christian  God 

^  Burckhardt,  and  others,  in  picturing  Constantine  as  such  a  man, 
came  near  creating  a  modern  legendary  Constantine  as  the  product  of 
nineteenth-century  free-thought.   Cf.  infra,  p.  99. 

-De  Mort.  Pers.,  46.  Seeck,  in  his  Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt,  accepts 
Lactantius'  account  of  the  battle  which  followed,  in  every  detail,  even 
to  the  successful  carrying-out  of  this  plan. 

^  Cf.  Seeck,  Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt,  i,  pp.  61,  472-3. 


82 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[82 


crowned  his  arms/  In  neither  was  the  change  so  great 
as  it  has  usually  been  considered.  To  the  end  of  his  days 
probably  his  chief  conception  of  Christianity  was  that  of  a 
cult  whose  prayers  and  whose  emblems  ensured  the  help  of 
the  supreme  heavenly  power  in  military  conflicts  and  politi- 
cal crises,  and  whose  rites  guaranteed  eternal  blessedness. 
Of  the  inner  experiences  of  Christianity  and  of  the  doc- 
trines of  that  religion,  other  than  the  broadest  monotheism, 
he  seems  to  have  had  little  conception. 

The  great  Arian  controversy  seemed  to  him  intrinsi- 
cally trifling  and  of  little  moment  "  involving  "  not  any  of 
the  leading  doctrines  or  precepts  of  the  Divine  law  "  but 
concerning  "  small  and  very  insignificant  questions."  ^ 
Upon  the  proper  day  for  observing  Easter,  however,  vital 
issues  depended.  "  A  discordant  judgment  in  a  case  of 
such  importance  and  respecting  such  a  religious  festival,  is 
wrong,"  "  discrepancy  of  opinion  on  so  sacred  a  question 
is  unbecoming."  ^  At  the  court  Easter  was  celebrated  with 
gorgeous  ceremonies,  and  martyr's  days  and  other  sacred 
occasions  were  carefully  observed.* 

5.  The  Transition  from  Paganism  to  Christianity  in  the 
Roman  Empire 

In  all  of  this,  Constantine  did  not  differ  greatly  from  the 
current  notions  of  his  day,  pagan  and  Christian.  Most 
men  seem  to  have  been  seeking  charms  to  give  them  success 
in  this  life  and  happiness  hereafter.    Belief  in  one  supreme 

1  Cf.  the  prayer  which  Eusebius  said  was  enforced  in  the  army,  Life 
of  Constantine,  iv,  20. 

'  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  68-71,  reproducing  letter  to  Alex- 
ander and  Arius. 

^  Op.  cit.,  iii,  18  and  19,  reproducing  letter  of  Constantine  respecting 
the  Council  of  Nicea. 
^  Op.  cit.,  iv,  22  and  23. 


THE  '•  CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE 


83 


heavenly  power,  in  the  future  life,  and  in  the  necessity  of 
expiatory  rites,  was  common  to  Roman  paganism  of  the 
fourth  century,  modified  as  it  had  become  by  prevalent  in- 
fluences, and  to  Christianity.^ 

Remembering  the  presence  of  numerous  Orientals  in 
Gaul  ^  and  Constantine's  connection  with  the  cult  of  the 
sun,^  the  transformation  of  Roman  religious  life  as  de- 
scribed by  Cumont  is  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  the  case 
of  Constantine.  "  The  last  formula  reached  by  the  religion 
of  the  pagan  Semites  and  in  consequence  by  that  of  the 
Romans,  was  a  divinity  unique,  almighty,  eternal,  universal 
and  inefifable,  that  revealed  itself  throughout  nature,  but 
whose  most  splendid  and  most  energetic  manifestation  was 
the  sun.  To  arrive  at  the  Christian  monotheism  only  one 
final  tie  had  to  be  broken,  that  is  to  say,  this  supreme  being, 
resident  in  a  distant  heaven,  had  to  be  removed  beyond  the 
world."  ' 

"  The  principal  divergence  [between  Christianity  and  the 
later  Roman  paganism]  was  that  Christianity,  by  placing 

^  For  the  gradual  change  in  the  tone  of  the  panegyrists  and  others 
from  polytheism  to  monotheism,  see  Pichon,  Les  derniers  £crivains 
profanes,  Paris,  1906.  A  beautiful  illustration  of  this  is  the  peroration 
of  the  anonymous  panegyric  delivered  before  Constantine  in  Gaul  in 
313-  Cf.  supra,  p.  76.  It  was  certainly  not  a  long  step  for  the  orator 
of  this  occasion  instead  of  declaring  (chap.  2)  that  Constantine  was 
under  the  care  of  the  supreme  mind,  while  other  mortals  were  left  to 
the  lesser  gods,  to  omit  the  lesser  gods  entirely  in  his  peroration. 
Cf.  infra,  p.  132  et  seq.,  and  supra,  p.  76,  n.  5. 

"  Cf.  Cumont,  Oriental  Religions  in  the  Roman  Empire,  pp.  107  et  seq. 

3  Eumenius,  Panegyric.  Cf.  supra,  pp.  75-76;  Julian,  Orat.,  vii,  f. 
228,  and  numerous  coins  inscribed  to  "  Soli  Invicti  Comiti."  See  also 
Preger,  Konstantinos-Helios,  in  Hermes,  xxxvi,  1901,  pp.  457  et  seq. 

*  Op.  cit.,  p.  134.  Cf.  page  xxiv.  Cf.  also  p.  288,  where  Cumont 
quotes  with  approval  Loeschke's  statement  calling  Constantine's  letters 
"  ein  merkwiirdiges  Produkt  theologischen  Dilletantismus,  aufgebaut 
auf  im  wesentlichen  pantheistischer  Grundlage  mit  Hilfe  weniger  christ- 
licher  Termini  und  fast  noch  weniger  christlicher  Gedanken." 


84 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[84 


God  in  an  ideal  sphere  beyond  the  confines  of  this  world, 
endeavored  to  rid  itself  of  every  attachment  to  a  frequently  ^ 
abject  polytheism.  ...  As  the  religious  history  of  the  em- 
pire is  studied  more  closely,  the  triumph  of  the  church  will, 
in  our  opinion,  appear  more  and  more  as  the  culmination 
of  a  long  evolution  of  beliefs." 

What  was  true  of  Constantine  was  thus  in  a  measure 
true  of  the  Empire  at  large.  Christianity  and  paganism  in 
the  fourth  century  did  not  constitute  two  fixed,  unchanging, 
irreconcilable  enemies.  "  The  upper  class  were  for  gener- 
ations far  more  united  by  the  old  social  and  literary  tra- 
dition than  they  were  divided  by  religious  belief.  ...  In 
truth  the  line  between  Christian  and  pagan  was  long  wav- 
ering and  uncertain.  We  find  adherents  of  the  opposing 
creeds  side  by  side  even  in  the  same  family  at  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century."  ^ 

The  later  persecutions  seem  to  have  been  continued  more 
by  governmental  policy  than  by  popular  desire.  There 
was  even  a  general  reaction  among  the  people  against  this 
policy.  Lactantius  was  able  to  give  as  one  of  the  reasons 
why  God  permitted  the  persecutions  the  fact  that  great 
numbers  are  driven  from  the  worship  of  the  false  gods  by 
their  hatred  of  cruelty."  ^  The  triumph  of  Christianity 
was  comparatively  peaceful  and  left  paganism  in  many  in- 
stances unembittered.  "  No  advocate  appeared ;  neither 
god  nor  demon,  prophet  nor  divines,  could  lend  his  aid  to 
the  detected  author  of  the  imposture  [of  paganism.]  For 
the  souls  of  men  were  no  longer  enveloped  in  thick  dark- 
ness, but  enlightened  by  rays  of  true  godliness,  they  de- 
plored the  ignorance,"  etc.^ 

1  Dill,  Roman  Society,  2d  ed,  p.  13.  Cf.  also  E.  F.  Humphrey,  Poli- 
tics and  Religion  in  the  Days  of  Augustine  (New  York,  1912),  pp.  26- 
39,  et  passim,  for  the  situation  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  and  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century.    Cf.  also,  infra,  p.  96. 

^Divine  Institutes,  v,  24. 

3  Eusebius,  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine,  viii,  8. 


85]  THE  "CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE  85 

^The  religious  revolution  under  Constantine  was  not 
unique  in  the  history  of  the  empire  though  it  proved  to  be 
the  greatest  one.  Mithraism  and  a  revival  of  the  cult  of 
Apollo  had  prevailed  in  the  court  of  Diocletian.  Chris- 
tianity came  to  the  front  under  Constantine,  and  Neo- 
platonism  was  fostered  by  Julian.  This  oscillation  was  not 
due  entirely  to  an  even  balance  of  powder  between  bitter 
enemies,  but  in  part,  also,  to  uncertainty  and  a  wavering 
border  line. 

On  the  pagan  side  there  had  long  been  a  movement  un- 
consciously leading  in  the  direction  of  Christianity.  Pag- 
anism "  after  three  centuries  of  Oriental  influence  .  .  . 
was  no  longer  like  that  of  ancient  Rome,  a  mere  collection 
of  propitiatory  and  expiatory  rites  perfonned  by  the  citi- 
zen for  the  good  of  the  state :  it  now  pretended  to  offer 
to  all  men  a  w^orld  conception  which  gave  rise  to  a  rule  of 
conduct  and  placed  the  end  of  existence  in  the  future  life. 
It  was  more  unlike  the  worship  which  Augustus  had  at- 
tempted to  restore  than  the  Christianity  that  fought  it. 
The  two  opposed  creeds  moved  in  the  same  intellectual  and 
moral  sphere,  and  one  could  actually  pass  from  one  to  the 
other  without  shock  or  interruption.  .  .  .  The  religious 
and  mystical  spirit  of  the  Orient  had  slowly  overcome  the 
whole  social  organism  and  had  prepared  all  nations  to 
unite  in  the  bosom  of  a  universal  church."  ^ 

On  the  Christian  side  the  sense  of  irreconcilable  con- 
flict between  the  world  and  the  gospel  no  longer  dominated 
all  church  life.  Belief  in  the  speedy  end  of  the  world  and 
apocalyptic  descriptions  of  a  miraculous  millennium,  which 
had  at  first  offered  to  many  the  only  hopeful  outcome  of 
this  conflict,  were  gradually  relegated  to  the  byways  of 
ecclesiastical  thought.   In  the  third  century,  the  great  Alex- 


1  Cumont.  Oriental  Religions,  etc.,  pp.  210-11. 


86  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [86 


andrian  theologians  had  completed  the  reconciliation  of 
the  new  revelation  and  the  old  philosophy  in  an  evolution- 
ary interpretation  of  Christianity.^  Without  surrendering 
its  claim  to  finality  or  the  necessity  of  the  exclusion  of  all 
other  gods  and  religions  from  the  mind  of  the  believer,  the 
new  faith  found  many  points  of  contact  and  support  in 
the  growing  monotheism  of  paganism.  Nor  were  the 
Christians,  as  we  have  seen,  free  from  the  fundamental  re- 
ligious notions  of  the  fourth-century  piety  generally;  be- 
lief in  magic,  in  good  and  evil  spirits,  in  the  constant  inter- 
ference of  the  supernatural  in  human  affairs,  and  in  suc- 
cess and  victory  as  the  ultimate  test  of  the  reality  and 
supremacy  of  the  god  whose  aid  was  invoked.^ 

The  center  of  Constantine's  Christian  life  and  that  of 
many  of  his  contemporaries  is  to  be  sought,  not  in  any 
theological  or  moral  convictions,  but  in  the  identification  of 
his  fortunes,  his  luck  one  might  say,  with  the  Christian 
god.  Eusebius,  perhaps  unwittingly,  tells  us  as  much  when 
he  closes  his  "  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine  "  with  the 
tribute  of  divine  revelations  to  the  Emperor:  ^ 

Yourself,  it  may  be,  will  vouchsafe  at  a  time  of  leisure  to 
relate  to  us  the  abundant  manifestations  which  your  Saviour 
has  accorded  you  of  his  presence,  and  the  oft-repeated  visions 
of  himself  which  have  attended  you  in  the  hours  of  sleep.  I 
speak  not  of  those  secret  suggestions  which  to  us  are  unre- 
vealed :  but  of  those  principles  which  he  has  instilled  into  your 
own  mind,  and  which  are  fraught  with  general  interest  and 
benefit  to  the  human  race.  You  will  yourself  relate  in  worthy 
terms  the  visible  protection  which  your  Divine  shield  and 
guardian  has  extended  in  the  hour  of  battle;  the  ruin  of  your 
open  and  secret  foes;  and  his  ready  aid  in  time  of  peril.  To 

1  Cf.  the  chapters  upon  the  Hellenizing  of  church  theology  in  Har- 
nack,  Dogmengeschichte. 

2  Cf.  infra,  pp.  95-96. 

3  Chap.  18. 


THE  "CONVERSION''  OF  CONSTANTINE  87 


him  you  will  ascribe  relief  in  the  midst  of  perplexity,  defence 
in  solitude,  expedients  in  extremity,  foreknowledge  of  events 
yet  future. 

6.  Constantine's  Baptism 

Only  one  contemporary  source,  Eusebius'  Life  of  Con~ 
stantine,  distinctly  affirms  and  describes  Constantine's  en- 
trance into  membership  in  the  Christian  Church.^  He  is, 
to  be  sure,  spoken  of  as  "  pious  "  and  God-beloved  "  in 
the  Church  History,  but  the  same  terms  are  applied  to 
Licinius,  whom  nobody  has  ever  accused  of  being  a  Chris- 
tian, and  whom  Eusebius  afterwards  likened  to  some 
savage  beast  of  prey,  or  some  crooked  and  wriggling  ser- 
pent" ^  In  spite  of  the  friendly  relations  between  Con- 
stantine  and  the  church  organization,  in  spite  of  the  part  he 
took  in  the  church  council  at  Nicea  and  possibly  at  Aries, 
in  spite  of  public  proclamations  of  Christian  faith  with 
which  he  is  accredited,  there  is  no  evidence  nor  contempor- 
ary report  of  Constantine's  becoming  even  a  catechumen 
until  the  last  few  days  of  his  life.  For  that  and  his  bap- 
tism the  only  account  we  have  is  in  his  Life  by  Eusebius. 

Here  we  are  told  that  the  emperor,  convinced  that  his 
end  was  near,^  sought  purification  for  the  sins  of  his  past 

Mv,  61-64. 

2  Church  History,  9,  i;  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  i. 

3  iv,  61-62.  The  fact  that  Constantine  was  not  baptized  until  his  last 
illness  does  not  indicate  that  he  then  for  the  first  time  accepted  Chris- 
tianity. Fear  of  the  penalties  inflicted  for  mortal  sin  after  baptism 
was  a  powerful  motive  for  the  postponement  of  the  rite.  In  many 
other  cases  than  Constantine's  it  was  deferred  till  the  approach  of 
death,  and  was  sometimes  even  administered  upon  the  sick-bed  (clin- 
ical baptism).  Constantine's  leniency  toward  the  Novatianists  {cf.  Cod. 
Theod.,  xvi,  5,  2),  who  were  very  rigorous  in  their  treatment  of  those 
who  had  "  lapsed  "  after  baptism,  may  possibly  be  an  indication  of  sym- 
pathy for  their  position  in  this  respect.  On  this  whole  subject,  cf, 
Dolger,  Konstantin  d.  Grosse  u.  s.  Zeit,  pp.  429-447. 


88  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [gg 

career  in  "  the  mystical  words  and  salutary  waters  of  bap- 
tism ".  He  prayed  "  kneeling  on  the  pavement  in  the 
church  itself,  in  which  he  also  now  for  the  first  time  re- 
ceived the  imposition  of  hands  with  prayer  "  [the  process 
of  becoming  a  catechumen].  Meeting  the  bishops  whom 
he  had  summoned  at  the  suburbs  of  Nicomedia,  he  ex- 
plained that  he  had  deferred  baptism  hoping  to  have  it  ad- 
ministered in  the  river  Jordan,  but  since  God  decreed 
otherwise  he  requested  it  "  without  delay  If  he  were 
destined  to  recover  and  associate  with  the  people  of  God, 
and  unite  with  them  in  prayer  as  a  member  of  the  church,  he 
would  prescribe  for  himself  thenceforth  such  a  course  of 
life  as  befitted  His  service. 

"  After  he  had  thus  spoken,  the  prelates  performed  the 
sacred  ceremonies  in  the  usual  manner,  and  having  given 
him.  the  necessary  instructions,  made  him  a  partaker  of  the 
mystic  ordinance.  Thus  was  Constantine  the  first  of  all 
sovereigns  who  was  regenerated  and  perfected  in  a  church 
dedicated  to  the  martyrs  of  Christ;  thus  gifted  with  the 
divine  seal  of  baptism,  he  rejoiced  in  spirit,  was  renewed, 
and  filled  with  heavenly  light." 

"  At  the  conclusion  of  the  ceremony  he  arrayed  himself 
in  shining  imperial  vestments,  brilliant  as  the  light  .  .  . 
refusing  to  clothe  himself  with  the  purple  any  more."  This 
account  in  the  Life  of  Constantine  alone,  a  source  not 
above  suspicion,  a  eulogy  rather  than  a  biography,  can 
hardly  by  itself  establish  the  baptism  of  Constantine  as  an 
historical  certainty.  But  it  is  confirmed  by  the  best  writers 
of  the  following  generations  with  some  additional  facts 
implying  independent  sources.^    There  seems  therefore  no 

1  Or  "  hesitation  ". 

-Jerome  (Chron.,  A.  Abr.  2353)  adds  that  Constantine  was  baptized  by 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  ("  Constantinus  extremo  vitae  suae  tempore  ab 
Eusebio  Nicomedensi  episcopo  baptizatus  in  Arianum  dogma  declinat"). 


89] 


THE  "CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE 


89 


reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the  narrative,  and  it  is  accepted 
by  practically  all  modern  historians.' 

7.  Ethical  Aspects  of  Constantine  s  Life. 

A  survey  of  Constantine's  Christianity  would  not  be 
complete  unless  it  took  unto  account  certain  ethical  as- 
pects of  his  life  and  reign  which  have  been  occasionally 
cited  as  proof  that  he  was  never  at  heart  really  a  Chris- 
tian. 

Criticism  of  his  character  from  pagan  sources  was  not 
wanting.  His  vanity  was  freely  commented  on.  Eutropius, 
Constantine's  pagan  secretary,  and  later  the  friend  of 
Julian,  criticized  his  administration  after  the  adoption  of 
Christianity. Ammianus  Marcellinus  complained  of  his 
prodigality  towards  his  friends. ^  Julian  criticized  him 
severely  in  the  Caesars  for  extravagance,  minimized  his 
achievements,  and  accused  him  of  luxury  and  dissolute- 
ness. ^  Zosimus  wrote  bitterly  of  his  waste  of  public 
money,  ^  of  his  favors  to  undeserving  persons,  and  of  the 

This  may  be  an  inference  from  the  place  where  the  ceremony  was  per- 
formed, but  since  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  was  not  orthodox,  one  is  led 
to  think  Jerome  would  not  have  given  his  name  without  direct  evidence 
calling  for  it.  Inasmuch  as  Jerome,  apparently,  did  not  use  the  story 
of  Constantine's  conversion  through  a  miraculous  vision,  and  other 
episodes  from  Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine  which  would  naturally 
appeal  to  him,  it  may  be  that  he  did  not  even  know  this  work.  Cf.  also 
Mommsen,  Chronica  minora,  i,  p.  235. 

*  For  a  complete  and  scholarly  summary  of  the  overwhelming  evi- 
dence for  the  baptism  of  Constantine,  cf.  F.  J.  Dolger,  "  Die  Taufe 
Konstantins  u.  ihre  Probleme,"  mKons.tantin  d.  Crosse  u.  s.  Zeit  (1913), 
pp.  381-394- 

'x,  6  and  7  (ed.  Ruehl,  Leipsic,  1887)  :  "  In  prime  Imperii  tempore 
optimis  principibus,  ultimo  mediis  comparandus,  "  "  Interfecit  num- 
eros  amicos.  " 

*  xvi,  8  :  "  Proximorum  fauces  aperuit  primus  omnium  Constantinus." 
^  Cf.  infra.,  pp.  124  127  ''Book  i. 


90  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [go 

crushing  burden  of  taxation  imposed  by  him.  ^  He 
closes  his  account  of  Constantine  with  a  register  of  his 
weaknesses,  mistakes  and  crimes.  In  the  Epitome  under 
the  name  of  Sextus  AureHus  Victor  the  first  ten  years  of 
Constantine's  reign  are  praised,  in  the  next  twelve  he  is 
said  to  have  been  a  robber,  and  in  the  last  ten  a  dotard 
on  account  of  his  enormous  squandering.  ^ 

Some  of  these  criticisms  are  supported  by  the  evidence 
of  Christian  writers,  also,  especially  the  indictment  of 
extravagance  and  favoritism,^  which  seems  to  have  been 
amply  warranted  by  the  facts.^ 

One  fixed  standard  of  Christianity,  one  of  its  cardinal 
requirements,  chastity,  Constantine  apparently  frequently 
violated.  Heathen  panegyrists  praised  him,  indeed,  for 
his  chastity  and  his  conduct  toward  women  in  his  cam- 
paigns.^  Julian,  however,  in  his  Caesars  accused  him  of 
living  luxuriously  and  dissolutely  in  time  of  peace.^  If 
this  be  set  down  as  malicious  gossip,  it  is  reinforced  by 
the  rather  infrequent  and  perfunctory  praise  by  Christian 
writers,^  where,  had  there  been  an  opportunity,  we  would 
expect  extravagant  praise  and  jubilant  comparison  with 

^Book  ii,  chap.  38,  ed.  Bekker  (Bonn  1837),  p.  104. 

''Trachala  [from  the  Greek,  rpaxalac,^  one  of  Constantine's  epithets] 
decern  praestantissimus,  duodecim  sequentibus  latro,  decern  novissimis 
ptipillus  ob  immodicas  profusiones,"  chap.  41. 

^Eusebius,  Life  of  Consianime^  i,  43;  iv,  i;  4;  31;  54  and  55. 

*For  one  of  the  fullest  recent  characterizations  of  Constantine  see 
Seeck,  Geschichie  des  Untergangs  der  antike?t  Welt.,  i,  pp.  45-75. 

^ Incerti  auctoris  panegyricus  Maximiano  et  Constantino  dicius  (307), 
chap,  iv,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  col.  612;  Incerti  Panegy^Hcus  (313), 
chap,  vii,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  col.  660,  and  chap,  xvii,  col.  667; 
Nazarius  panegyricus  (321),  chap,  xxxiv,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  col. 
605. 

*  Cf.  infra,  p.  125. 

''Eg.  Eusebius,  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine,  v,  4. 


gi]  THE  ''CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE  91 

heathen  emperors.  The  fact  seems  to  be  that  his  oldest 
son  Crispus  was  the  son  of  a  concubine,  Minervina/  and 
that  either  Constantius  or  Constantine  II,  born  within  a 
few  months  of  each  other,  was  also  illegitimate.  Seeck 
gives  somie  evidence  that  he  was  not  free  from  irregular 
relations  during  most  of  the  time  of  his  marriage  with 
Fausta,  307-326.^ 

In  another  respect  also  Constantine  deviated  from  the 
standards  of  primitive  Christianity  and  the  standard  of 
the  better  Christians  of  his  own  day.  He  was  exces- 
sively fond  of  display  and  his  vanity  was  notorious. 
Most  of  his  panegyrists,  doubtless  with  assurance  of  his 
approval,  mingled  their  outrageous  flattery  with  praise 
of  his  personal  appearance.  He  w^as  the  first  emperor 
to  be  pictured  wearing  a  diadem.  He  adorned  himself 
with  gems,  bracelets,  jewelled  collars,  robes  with  em- 
broidered gold,3  and  even  with  false  hair  of  different 
colors.^ 

The  most  telling  indictment  of  Constantine,  however, 
grows  out  of  the  execution  of  certain  persons  closely 
related  to  him,  such  as  Licinius,  his  colleague  and 
brother-in-law,  Crispus  his  son,  and  Fausta  his  wife.^ 

^Zosimus,  ii,  20,  2;  Vict.  Epit.,  41,4;  Zonaras,  xiii.  Eusebius  by  ig- 
noring Crispus  entirely  in  his  Life  of  Constaiitine  {Cf.  iv,  40  and  49), 
though  he  had  written  very  highly  of  him  in  his  Church  History  (x,  9, 
4),  may  have  been  influenced  by  the  fact  that  Crispus  was  illegitimate, 
as  well  as  by  the  fact  that  he  had  been  executed  by  his  father's  orders. 

^  Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt,,  i,  476;  iii,  425;  iv,  3,  377. 

'Caricatured  by  Julian  in  the  Caesars,  cf.  infra,  p.  126. 

^  Cf.  Gibbon,  Decli?ie  and  Fall  of  the  Ro^nan  Empire,  ed.  Bury,  ii, 
205;  Richardson  in  Nice7ie  and  Posi-Nice7te  Fathers,  Second  series,  vol. 
i,  Eusebius,  p.  427.  Eusebius  speciously  covers  the  real  facts  of  his 
gorgeous  descriptions  by  ascribing  a  superior  mental  attitude  to  the 
emperor.  Life  of  Constantine ,  iii,  10;  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constan- 
tine, 5,  6. 

^To  complete  the  list  of  executions  in  his  family  there  could  be 


92 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[92 


The  execution  of  Licinius  in  325,  a  year  or  two  after  he 
had  surrendered  upon  promise  of  security,  was  by  pagan 
writers  and  hostile  historians  called  a  violation  of  faith. 
By  early  Christian  writers  and  by  friendly  historians  it 
was  ascribed  to  the  continual  plotting  of  Licinius  which 
made  his  death  necessary. '  The  execution  of  Crispus  and 
Fausta  has  been  attributed  by  som.e  to  their  adultery,  by 
some  to  a  false  accusation  against  Crispus  by  Fausta, 
and  the  subsequent  crime  of  the  latter,  and  by  others  to 
family  dissensions  and  sultanism  such  as  occurred  in  the 
case  of  Herod  the  Great. ^ 

added  the  earlier  death  of  his  father-in-law,  Maximianus,  of  another 
brother-in.law,  Bassianus,  and  the  later  execution  of  his  nephew,  son 
of  Licinius  and  Constantia  (though  this  son  of  Licinius  was  perhaps 
illegitimate).  Even  if  all  of  these  executions  were  justifiable,  as  some 
of  them  certainly  were,  it  is  an  appalling  list. 

^  Cf.  Fasti  of  Hydatius  in  Mommsen:  Chronica  minora,  i,  p.  232; 
Eutropius,  X,  6,  i:  Zosimus,  ii,  28,  2  and  ii,  29:  the  last  two  look  at  it 
as  a  violation  of  Constantine's  oath  made  when  Licinius  surrendered; 
Eusebius,  Life  of  Consiantine,  ii,  18:  Ano?i.  Vales.,  v,  29:  Socrates, 
Church  History,  i,  4:  Zonarus,  xiii,  all  four  of  whom  exonerate  Con- 
stantine  of  any  violation  of  faith.  Seeck,  Unterga^ig  der  aiiiiken  Welt, 
vol.  i,  p.  183,  holds  that  the  execution  was  necessary,  and  forced  on 
Constantine  by  his  army. 

^For  the  execution  of  Crispus  and  of  Fausta,  see  Seeck,  "  Die  Ver- 
wandtenmcrde  Constantins  des  Grossen,"  Zisch.  f.  miss.  Theol.,  xxxiii 
(i8qo),  63  et  seg.,  and  his  Untergang  der  antiken  Welt,  in  chapters 
devoted  to  Constantine.  For  list  of  evidences  see  Seeck,  Untergang 
der  antiken  Welt,  iii,  424-5,  and  add  to  that  list  Philostorgius,  Church 
History,  epitomized  by  Photius,  Book  ii,  chapter  4;  Ammianus  Marcel- 
linus,  xiv,  6;  see  also  Bury's  discussion  in  his  edition  of  Gibbon:  Decline 
and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire ,  ii,  558.  Eusebius  ignores  the  whole 
matter,  but  in  two  lists  of  the  emperor's  sons,  which  he  gives  after  Con- 
stantine's death  {Life  of  Consta7itine,  iv,40  and  49),  he  omits  Crispus  en- 
tirely, thus  implying  his  official  execution.  Monuments  and  other  me- 
morials {e.  g.,  C.  I.  L.,  ID,  517)  have  been  discovered  with  Crispus' 
name  erased,  thus  strengthening  the  theory  of  his  disgrace. 

It  has  been  maintained  by  some,  even  recently,  that  Fausta  was  not 
executed  at  all  but  was  living  as  late  as  340,  three  years  after  Constan- 


93] 


THE  ''CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE 


93 


It  is,  however,  hard  to  see  how  the  obscure  question 
of  the  guilt  of  those  executed  and  of  the  motives  of  the 
emperor  has  any  bearing  on  the  rehgious  question.  If 
the  executions  were  unjustifiable  they  w^ould  be  con- 
demned by  a  pagan  as  much  as  by  a  Christian  conscience ; 
if  they  were  in  the  mind  of  Constantine  unavoidable  there 
was  nothing  in  either  his  Christianity  or  his  paganism  to 
prevent  them.  No  one  could  argue  from  the  execution 
of  Don  Carlos,  that  Philip  II  of  Spain  professed  pagan- 
ism rather  than  Christianity.  These  family  crimes, 
whether  Constantine's  or  his  victims,  may  show  that  he 
was  suspicious  or  cruel,  or  difficult  to  get  along  with, 

tine's  death.  Gibbon  hazarded  this  as  a  possibility  {Decline  and  Fall, 
elc.,Qd.  Bury,ii,pp.2ii-2i2).  Ranke  (  Weligeschichie,  iii,  521  asserts  it, 
as  does  Victor  Schultze,  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G viii,  p.  534,  followed  by  Boyd: 
Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  7 heodosian  Code  (Columbia  Univ.  Studies, 
etc.,  vol.  xxxiv),  p.  17.  The  evidence  upon  which  this  view  was  based 
does  not  compare  in  amount  with  the  evidence  on  the  other  side  and  is 
extremely  faulty,  the  principal  pieces  being  the  fact  that  Julian  Orat.,  i 
(p.  10  ed.,  Hertlein)  eulogizes  Fausta  as  he  would  not  have  done  had 
she  been  executed  and  guilty  of  a  crime  (her  guilt  is  not  necessarily 
involved  in  the  question)  and  the  existence  of  the  Anonymi  Monodia 
(ed.  Frotscher  Afion.  G^aeci  oratio  funebris,  Freiberg,  i.  S.,  1855) 
formerly  supposed  to  be  (and  so  labeled  in  one  MS.)  a  funeral  oration 
on  Constantine,  the  eldest  son  of  Constantine  the  Great  killed  in  340. 
This  explicitly  states  that  the  mother  of  the  dead  prince  survived  him; 
but  it  has  been  clearly  proved  to  be  a  much  later  writing  and  to  refer  to 
some  Byzantine  emperor  late  in  the  Middle  Ages.  (Seeck,  Zeitsch.  f. 
Wiss.  Theol.,  1890,  p.  64);  Wordsworth:  '"Constantine  the  Great  and 
his  Sons":  "Constantius  i,"  in  Smith  and  Wace:  Diet.,  1,(1877),  P-  630; 
Bury,  in  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  534.  A  heretofore  neglected  bit  of  evidence  lies 
in  a  letter  in  Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine,  iii.  52,  purporting  to  be 
from  Constantine,  referring  to  the  benefit  of  information  given  him  by 
his  "truly  pious  mother-in-law"  (Eutropia,  mother  of  Fausta),  evi- 
dently after  the  execution  of  Fausta.  This  would  seem  to  tend  either 
to  disprove  the  execution  or  to  justify  it;  in  view  of  the  other  evidence 
probably  the  latter.  Seeck:  Die  Verwandte7imorde  Constantins  des 
Grossen,  pp.  6^-77,  holds  the  execution  of  both  Crispus  and  Fausta  to 
have  been  caused  by  their  joint  misconduct. 


94 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[94 


and  hence  they  may  affect  our  judgment  of  his  character, 
and  of  the  kind  of  Christianity  he  experienced ;  but  they 
do  not  prove  that  he  did  or  did  not  profess  Christianity. 

In  view  of  all  the  foregoing,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is 
easy  to  pronounce  harsh  judgment  on  Constantine. 
One  of  the  foremost  of  present-day  writers  upon  the 
period  says,  "  The  personal  morality  of  the  first  emperor, 
who,  though  not  a  Christian,  at  least  died  as  a  baptized 
Christian,  was  not  much  above  that  of  an  oriental 
sultan."^  Not  to  pause  over  the  question  whether  even 
an  oriental  sultan"  may  not  have  a  high  standard  of 
personal  morality,  the  implied  criticism  has  much  justi- 
fication. Yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  Constantine 
compared  more  than  favorably  with  the  other  emperors 
of  his  century.  Moreover,  judging  from  Christian  writ- 
ings of  the  time  which  have  been  preserved,  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  the  ethical  element  of  that  religion 
was  emphasized  then  as  much  as  it  is  usually  assumed  to 
have  been  emphasized. So  far  as  we  can  judge,  Con- 
stantine conceived  his  own  service  of  the  Supreme  God 
to  be  chiefly  by  way  of  promoting  his  cult  and  his 
church,  and  to  this  task  he  was  true. 

8.  Summary 

If  our  interpretation  of  the  evidence  be  correct,  the 
answer  to  the  question  of  Constantine's  religious  position 
would  be  about  as  follows  :  He  was  at  first  a  pagan  in- 
clined toward  monotheism,  and  friendly  in  his  attitude 
toward  the  Christians.  In  his  government  he  extended 
more  and  more  favors  and  privileges  to  the  Christians, 
and  before  323  put  Christianity  on  a  level  with  official 

''Schwartz,  Kaiser  Consta^itin  u.  d.  christliche  Kircke,  p.  70. 
''-Eg.  cf.  the  course  of  the  whole  Arian  controversy  as  told  by  Soc- 
rates and  other  continuators  of  Eusebius.    Cf.  also,  -infra,  p.  102. 


95]  THE  "CONVERSION"  OF  CONSTANTINE 

paganism.  After  323,  when  he  was  sole  emperor,  he 
used  his  imperial  influence  very  extensively  for  Christi- 
anity and  against  paganism/  Personally,  he  allied  him- 
self to  the  Church  organization,  without  joining  himself 
to  it,  associated  intimately  with  Christian  priests,  took 
part  in  councils  and  identified  himself  in  sympathy  with 
church  affairs  so  far  as  ceremonies  and  preservation 
of  unity  were  concerned.  He  professed  belief  in  that  re- 
ligion as  a  whole,  in  the  lordship  of  the  Christian  God 
over  the  world,  in  his  revelation  through  Christ,  and  in 
his  providence  over  his  people.  He  believed  that  his 
own  remarkable  successes  were  miraculously  furthered 
by  his  use  of  Christian  symbols  and  by  his  course  toward 
the  church.  He  was  by  no  means  above  reproach  in 
either  his  private  or  public  life.  He  probably  prepared 
for  death  by  a  resolution  to  live  a  better  and  more  Chris- 
tian life  if  he  recovered  from  his  illness,  and  by  entering 
the  church  through  a  momentary  catechumenate  and 
through  baptism. 

The  importance  of  Constantine's  religious  develop- 
ment for  the  light  it  throws  on  the  history  of  religion 
has  generally  been  obscured  by  the  emphasis  put  upon 
the  profitless  question,  impossible  to  answer,  whether  his 
real  motives  were  political  or  sincerely  religious.  There 
are  few  men  of  the  fourth  century,  that  critical  century  in 
the  history  of  religion  in  Europe,  about  whom  we  have 
so  much  information,  reliable  and  otherwise.  I  beheve 
that  the  more  this  information  is  studied  from  the  point 
of  view  first  mentioned,  the  more  it  will  tend  to  con- 
firm the  theory  that  Christianity  did  not  come  down 
into  the  middle  ages  through  the  Roman  Empire  like 
a  knife  cutting  through  some  foreign  substance,  but 
that  it  entered  into  the  complex  of  imperial  religious 

1  Cf.  in  addition  to  references  given  supra,  Eusebius,  Life  of  Con- 
stantine,  ii,  23 ;  27. 


96 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[96 


life  along  with  other  oriental  influences  and  came  out, 
the  dominant  religion  of  Europe,  by  way  of  a  very  gen- 
eral synthesis.'  The  Christian  writers  upon  whom 
church  historians  have  relied  as  their  sources  over- 
emphasized contrasts  and  did  not  realize  this  synthesis, 
unconscious  as  it  largely  was.  We  recognize  that  pagan 
stories  about  the  early  Christians  were  slanders;  it  is  be- 
coming generally  recognized  that  many  of  the  early 
Catholic  stories  about  the  heretics  were  slanders ;  it  is 
very  probable  that  many  of  the  Christian  stories  about 
the  pagans,  emphasizing  the  contrast  between  the  two 
religions,  were  slanders.  Stories  of  the  conversion,  the 
piety  and  sainthood  of  Constantine  have  their  reverse 
side  in  sensational  denunciations  of  pagans  in  such  books 
as  Lactantius'  De  Mortibus  Persecutoru7n,  and  in  many 
paragraphs  in  other  writings.^  The  contrast  between 
religions  seems  to  have  been  overdrawn  as  much  as  was 
the  contrast  between  the  character  and  deaths  of  their 
several  champions. 

'  There  was  not  a  great  deal  of  difference  between  Constantine  con- 
sulting the  omens  at  the  Temple  of  Apollo  at  Autun,  and  Constantine 
seeking  miraculous  guidance  in  battle  in  his  tabernacle  as  described  by 
Eusebius,  cf.  supra,  p.  76;  infra,  pp.  134-135.  Nor  did  Aquilinus,  the 
Christian,  who  sought  cure  for  his  sickness  by  spending  the  night  at  a 
Christian  temple  (Sozomenii,  3)  differ  greatly  from  those  who  slept  in 
the  temple  of  Esculapius  (Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  56).  In  fact 
in  some  localities  the  transition  from  paganism  to  Christianity  seems  to 
have  been  facilitated  by  Christianizing  pagan  shrines  and  retaining  meth- 
ods of  healing  and  divination  used  by  the  pagan  priests  and  oracles, 
adopting,  however,  the  name  of  some  saint  or  angel  recognized  by  the 
Christians.  The  church  at  which  Aquilinus  was  healed  had  formerly 
been  a  famous  miracle-working  shrine.  Cf.  Mary  Hamilton,  Incuba- 
tion, or  the  Cure  of  Disease  in  Pagan  Temples  and  Christian  Churches 
(1906),  pp.  109-118,  138-140  et  passim. 

^  Cf.  for  instance,  the  account  of  Galerius'  death,  Lactantius,  op.  cit., 
chap.  33  ;  the  death  of  Maximinus  in  Eusebiu?,  Church  History,  ix,  10, 
14-15;  the  death  of  the  heretic  Arius,  in  Socrates,  Church  History, 
i,  38.  For  a  discussion  of  the  last  mentioned,  see  Seeck,  Untergang  d. 
antiken  Welt,  iii,  p.  426  et  seq.,  p.  438  et  seq. 


PART  TWO 


THE  LEGENDARY  CONSTANTINE 
AND  CHRISTIANITY 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  LEGEND-MAKERS 

I.  Significance  of  Legends  about  Constantine 

The  part  which  Constantine  actually  played  in  the  re- 
ligious revolution  of  the  fourth  century  is  scarcely  more 
significant  than  the  place  taken  in  that  and  subsequent  times 
by  legends  about  him.  Even  in  his  own  generation,  it  was 
not  only  the  actual  emperor,  but  the  emperor  as  idealized, 
that  influenced  the  thoughts  of  men  and  the  course  of 
events.  Few  men  at  the  time  tried  honestly  to  discriminate 
between  the  two.  After  the  lapse  of  sixteen  centuries  this 
discrimination,  though  the  necessity  for  it  is  recognized,  is 
exceedingly  difficult.  Many  of  those  who  discard  in  largest 
measure  material  from  earlier  writers  as  legendary  have 
unquestionably  created  from  the  remainder  a  Constantine 
as  legendary  as  that  one  described  by  their  predecessors. 
Such  has  Burckhardt's  Constantine  been  shown  to  be;  a 
Machiavellian  prince  who  had  no  conviction  but  that  of  his 
own  destiny,  a  cold,  clear-sighted,  free-thinking,  ambitious 
statesman,  rising  to  supreme  power  by  playing  with  the 
religious  faiths  of  his  subjects, — a  being  who  existed  only 
on  the  pages  of  over-skeptical  historical  critics,  and  yet  a 
powerful  influence  upon  the  thought  of  a  whole  generation. 

Even  if  we  should  be  fortunate  enough  accurately  to  dis- 
tinguish the  real  facts  from  legends,  the  latter  so  long  domi- 
nated the  thought  of  the  world  that  they  have  become  a 
99]  99 


lOO 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[lOO 


part  of  history/  Their  origin  and  acceptance,  also,  bring 
into  clear  relief  the  intellectual  life  of  the  ages  through 
which  they  have  come  to  us. 

2.  Lack  of  the  Historical  Spirit  in  the  Time  of  Constantine 

The  early  and  luxurious  growth  of  legends  about  Con- 
stantine is  explained  partly  by  the  relative  weakness  of  the 
investigative  and  historical  spirit  of  the  Romans.  History 
among  them  never  reached  the  position  of  an  independent 
science.  In  the  educational  curriculum  it  formed  a  sub- 
classification  under  rhetoric.^  Rhetorical  schools,  not 
formal  histories,  were  the  chief  means  of  instructing  new- 
comers to  Rome  in  history.^  It  was  only  natural  that  his- 
torical incidents  were  generally  distorted  for  rhetorical  pur- 
poses, and  that  it  became  the  fashion  in  imperial  times  to 
incorporate  manufactured  documents  when  authentic  ones 
were  not  at  hand.* 

There  seems  to  have  been  something  of  an  historical  re- 
vival in  the  time  of  Diocletian  and  Constantine.  But  this 
was  in  no  sense  scientific,  it  was  not  even  spontaneous.  The 
Scriptores  Historiae  Aiigiistae,  for  instance,  vv^hile  pretend- 
ing independence  and  impartiality,  were  in  part  imitators 

^  For  in  illuminating  discussion  of  the  part  of  legends  in  the  history 
of  the  world,  cf.  Dunning,  "  Truth  in  History,"  Am.  Hist.  Rev.  xxix 
(1914),  pp.  217-229. 

2  Cf.  Cicero,  de  leg.  i,  2,  5,  and  de  or.  2,  9,  36. 

3  H.  Peter:  Die  Geschichtliche  Litteratur  iiber  die  romische  Kaiserzeii 
his  Theodosius  I,  und  ihre  Quellen,  i,  10,  61-64. 

*  For  illustrations  on  a  wholesale  scale,  ibid.,  i,  248.  Cf.  from  an- 
other point  of  view,  O.  Seeck:  "Urkundensfalschung  des  4n  Jahrhun- 
derts,"  Zeitschr.  f.  K.  G.,  xxx,  (1909,  June),  p.  181.  Cf.  also,  H.  Peter, 
Wahrheit  und  Kunst  Geschichtsdtreibung  und  Plagiat  in  klassischen 
Altertum,  Leipzig,  191 1;  Reitzenstein,  Hellenistische  Wundererjdlt- 
lunger,  1906. 


jOj]  THE  LEGEND-MAKERS  lOI 

of  Suetonius,  in  part  mere  rhetoricians,  and  in  part  sub- 
sidized flatterers  of  the  reigning  monarch. 

Diocletian,  a  soldier  and  statesman  of  first  rank,  was  a 
crude  patron  of  letters  and  Constantine  followed  in  his  foot- 
steps/ The  most  notable  expression  of  revived  interest  in 
literary  and  historical  matters  was  the  rebirth  of  Roman 
rhetoric.  Gaul  was  one  of  its  greatest  seats,  and  the  pane- 
gyric was  its  most  characteristic  utterance.^  Fifty-three 
panegyrics  from  between  289  and  321  have  come  down 
from  Gaul,  mostly  from  Treves.'  Nazarius  and  Eumenius, 
two  of  the  leading  lights  among  these  rhetoricians,  eulo- 
gized Constantine  in  more  than  one  rhetorical  flight.  Euse- 
bius,  in  the  East,  went  even  beyond  them  in  praise  of  his 
royal  patron.  Peter's  criticism  of  imperial  Roman  biog- 
raphies holds  true  of  much  of  this  panegyrical  rhetoric. 
*'  Amid  the  confusion  of  petty,  insignificant  details,  errors, 
exaggerations,  careless  and  malignant  fabrications,  all  judg- 
ment and  ability  to  distinguish  between  the  possible  and 
the  impossible  was  lost.  People  believed,  without  asking 
the  question  whether  it  was  possible  or  not,  whether  it  was 
true  or  not."  * 

Constantine's  imperial  influence  did  not  improve  histor- 
ical standards.    Not  a  highly-educated  man,^  he  was  notor- 

^  Peter :  Gesch.  Liti.,  i,  95-96. 

'  For  school  at  Autun,  and  Eumenius,  see  G.  Block  in  Lavisse:  His- 
toire  de  France,  vol.  i,  part  ii  (1900),  pp.  388-398.  Translated  in  part 
in  Munro  &  Sellery:  Medieval  Civilization. 

'  Peter :  Gesch.  Litt.,  i,  46-49,  95. 

*  i,  150. 

5  Julian,  Or.  2,  94  a.  p.  102  H. ;  Aurelius  Victor,  Caes,  40,  13 ; 
Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  13  (where  the  emperor  ad- 
dressed the  Council  of  Nicea,  an  eastern  assembly,  in  Latin,  and  used 
a  Greek  interpreter)  iv,  32;  Exc.  Val.  2,  2  ("litteris  minus  in- 
structus")  ;  Anon.  Vales,  p.  471;  Cedrenus,  p.  473. 


I02  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [102 

iously  vain.^  Judging  by  the  panegyrics  to  which  he  lis- 
tened and  which  he  praised  and  rewarded,  he  encouraged 
the  wildest  flights  of  legend-breeding  imagination. 

Historical  writing  among  the  Christians  was  as  unre- 
liable as  among  the  pagans  of  the  empire.  Forgeries,  pres- 
ent in  religious  writings  of  the  heathen,  were  equally  num- 
erous in  Christian  writings.  Even  the  leading  bishops 
were  "  ready  to  prove  the  truth  of  their  faith  by  lies."  ^ 

3.  Incentives  to  Legend-Making 

Incentives  to  embellish  Constantine's  career  with  touches 
of  imagination  were,  from  the  first,  very  strong.  The  im- 
perial throne  always  distorted  accounts  of  the  character 
and  career  of  one  who  occupied  it  by  intensifying  all  the 
lights  and  shadows.  In  this  particular  case  there  were 
pagan  writers  to  do  injustice  to  a  Christian  ruler.  But 
most  of  all,  there  were  Christians  whose  imagination  was 
quickened  by  the  emergence  of  their  church  from  persecu- 
tion into  full  religious  liberty  and  even  to  supremacy  in 
the  state.  They  beheld  the  change  wrought,  moreover, 
not  through  any  struggle  and  victory  of  their  own,  but 
through  the  wonderful  military  achievements  of  one  w^ho, 
always  fighting  against  odds,  never  knew  defeat;  a  con- 
queror w^ho  raised  the  church  from  the  dust  and  honored 
her  in  the  imperial  court. 

Every  apprehension  of  the  evils  under  the  pressure  of  which 
all  had  suffered  was  now  removed;  men  whose  heads  had 
drooped  in  sorrow  now  regarded  each  other  with  smiling  coun- 
tenances, and  looks  expressive  of  inward  joy.    With  proces- 

1  Nicene  and  Post  Nicene  Fathers,  Eiisebhis,  p.  427;  Victor,  Epitome, 
61,  63,  (Antwerp  edition  1579)  p.  51;  Eutropius,  10,  7;  Eunapius  Vit. 
cedes,  p.  41,  (Amst.  1822). 

2  Seeck,  Unicrgang  d.  antiken  Welt,  iii,  210-212,  431  et  seq.,  with 
specific  illustrations  from  Ambrose  of  Milan  and  Athanasius. 


103]  THE  LEGEND-MAKERS  IO3 

sions  and  hymns  of  praise  they  first  of  all,  as  they  were  told, 
ascribed  the  supreme  sovereignty  to  God,  as  in  truth  the  King 
of  Kings :  and  then  with  continued  acclamations  rendered 
honor  to  the  victorious  emperor,  and  the  Caesars,  his  most  dis- 
creet and  pious  sons.  The  former  afflictions  were  forgotten 
and  all  past  impieties  forgiven,  while  with  the  enjoyment  of 
present  happiness  was  mingled  the  expectation  of  continued 
blessings  in  the  future.^ 

Thus  the  final  victory  of  Constantine  and  Christianity 
over  persecution  and  Paganism  fired  the  imagination  of 
those  who  were  to  make  the  history  and  the  legends  of  the 
future.  A  state  dinner  at  the  council  of  Nicea  gave  the 
church  historian  an  overpowering  contrast  between  the 
days  of  tribulation  and  of  triumph:  "detachments  of  the 
body  guard  and  other  troops  surrounded  the  entrance  of 
the  palace  with  drawn  swords,  and  through  the  midst  of 
these  the  men  of  God  proceeded  without  fear  [only  a  few 
years  before,  most  of  them  had  been  criminals  in  the  eyes 
of  the  law]  into  the  innermost  of  the  imperial  apartments, 
in  which  some  were  the  emperor's  owm  companions  at  table, 
while  others  reclined  on  couches  arranged  on  either  side. 
One  might  have  thought  that  a  picture  of  Christ's  king- 
dom was  thus  shadowed  forth,  and  a  dream  rather  than  a 
reality."  ^ 

European  civilization  turned  on  the  axis  of  this  man's 
reign.  It  is  no  wonder  that  he  received  the  tribute  of  in- 
numerable legends.  The  desire  to  know  and  to  tell  more 
than  the  plain  facts  about  such  a  great  man,  the  curiosity 

*  Eusebius :  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  19. 
Ibid.,  iii,  15.   It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  this  reflection  came 
to  Eusebius  at  the  imperial  banquet  rather  than  during  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  council.    He  also  rather  naively  remarks  that  "not  one 
of  the  bishops  was  wanting  at  the  imperial  banquet." 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [104 


which  in  other  circles  bred  a  host  of  legends  about  Alex- 
ander the  Great,  and  Charlemagne,  created  legends  about 
Constantine.  They  began  in  the  emperor's  lifetime  and 
as  the  worldly  greatness  increased  to  which  Constan- 
tine opened  the  door  for  the  church,  these  legends  also  de- 
veloped. Through  his  triumphal  arch  at  Rome  there 
marched,  no  longer  Roman  soldiers  but  Christian  priests 
whose  fervor  pictured  the  victor  in  strangely  distorted  per- 
spective. 

For  them  a  great  religious  revolution  had  been  wrought, 
and  the  more  wonderful  they  made  it,  the  more  it  accorded 
with  their  inner  feelings.  This  gave  a  peculiar  impetus  to 
the  legend-making  process.  For  the  emotional  stress  con- 
nected with  religious  movements  seems  more  fruitful  of 
legends  than  any  other,  more  even  than  the  emotion  of  pa- 
triotic and  family  pride.  Think,  for  instance,  of  the  swarm 
of  legends  which  developed  about  early  Buddhism,  Chris- 
tianity, and  Mohammedanism.  Almost  every  religious 
change,  such  as  the  introduction  of  a  new  religion,  gives 
rise  to  a  penumbra  of  this  sort.  The  explanation  is  un- 
doubtedly to  be  found  not  only  in  the  general  credulity  of 
the  ages  in  which  such  changes  take  place,  if  indeed  this 
can  be  proved,  but  also  in  the  character  of  the  emotional 
and  mental  activity  attending  religious  agitation  and  de- 
votion. Religion,  finding  its  explanation  of  human  life 
and  fortunes  in  the  will  of  God  or  gods,  encourages  the 
embellishment  of  events  with  providential  wonders.  In 
this  realm  the  mysterious  and  the  inexplicable  becomes  ac- 
cepted as  self-evident  fact.^ 

Many  religions  emphasize  truth.  But  this  must  usually 
be  understood  as  meaning,  not  historical  or  scientific  truth, 
as  these  terms  are  used  to-day,  but  as  another  term  for  the 


^  Cf.  H.  Delehaye,  The  Legends  of  the  Saints.  London,  1907. 


1 05]  THE  LEGEND-MAKERS  105 

content  of  the  teaching  of  these  several  religions.  In 
Christian  documents,  for  instance,  the  word  "  truth "  is 
used  not  so  much  in  the  former  as  in  the  latter  sense ;  it  is 
often  synonymous  with  the  revealed  content  of  Christian 
teaching,  with  the  gospel 

At  times  one  is  tempted  to  think  that  the  love  of  truth, 
which  is  the  basis  of  all  genuine  historical  criticism,  and 
of  all  other  scientific  work  as  well,  is  a  comparatively  mod- 
em product.  It  almost  seems  as  if  it  were  a  new  faculty 
acquired  in  the  slow^  evolution  of  the  human  mind.  If  this 
be  too  strong  a  statement,  born  of  impatience  at  the  occa- 
sional audacity  and  success  of  legend-makers,  a  study  of 
the  Constantinian  legends  shows  that  many  former  gen- 
erations, when  plain  historical  facts  lay  ready  at  hand,  pre- 
ferred to  create  and  accept  fanciful  stories. 

It  is  perhaps  invidious  to  designate  individual  writers 
in  this  connection,  for  most  legends  are  the  product  of 
many  minds,  the  work  of  whole  generations  rather  than  of 
isolated  persons.  Those  who  bore  a  conspicuous  part  in 
the  making  of  the  legends  about  Constantine  will  be  dis- 
cussed later  in  connection  with  these  legends.  Two  men, 
however,  are  so  pre-eminently  conspicuous  in  the  process 
that  they  require  mention  here,  namely,  Constantine  him- 
self, and  Eusebius,  his  first  biographer. 

4.  Constantine' s  Part  in  the  Process 

The  legend  of  Constantine's  descent  from  Claudius  ^ 
and  of  his  hereditary  right  to  the  imperial  purple  was  so 
obviously  to  his  own  advantage  that  it  is  only  reasonable  to 

1  Cf.  articles  on  a7.r]dsLa  in  Moulton  &  Geddes,  Concordance  to  the 
Greek  New  Testament',  Thayer,  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New 
Testament;  Cremer,  Bihlico-Theological  Lexicon  of  New  Testament 
Greek. 

^  Cf.  infra,  pp.  11 2- 115. 


Io6  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [io6 

assume  that  it  was  promulgated  at  his  instance.  Legends 
of  miraculous  manifestations  and  of  his  extraordinary  piety- 
may  also,  with  considerable  probability,  be  laid  at  his  door. 
Eusebius  repeatedly  ascribed  extraordinary  statements  of 
that  nature  to  the  emperor.  Though  his  assurances  to  the 
reader  that  he  merely  repeated  imperial  utterances  are  not 
altogether  convincing,  one  can  not  but  suspect  Constan- 
tine  of  being  aware  how  greatly  the  good  bishop  was  awed 
in  his  ruler's  presence,  and  how  easy  and  pleasant  it  would 
be  to  create  an  exaggerated  idea  of  his  own  Christian  de- 
votion.^ The  most  famous  instance  of  this  is  the  story  of 
the  miraculous  conversion  of  Constantine,  which  Eusebius 
assures  us  the  emperor  told  him  and  confirmed  with  an 
oath.^  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  Eusebius'  account  of 
this  conversion  was  not  wholly  his  own  invention,  for  his 
own  earlier  version  of  the  facts,  which  he  had  already 
given  out  in  the  Church  History,  was  quite  inconsistent 
with  the  story  of  the  miraculous  conversion. 

Stories  of  the  miraculous  protection  of  the  special  guard 
who  surrounded  and  defended  the  divine  standard  in  battle, 
with  which  Eusebius  says  the  emperor  regaled  him,^  may 
well  record  the  emperor's  superstitious  attitude  toward 
this  wonderful  charm,  but  they  bear  the  marks,  also,  of 
exaggeration  common  to  the  tales  which  men  of  war  often 
tell  to  men  of  peace. 

For  he  said  that  once,  during  the  very  heat  of  an  engagement, 
a  sudden  tumult  and  panic  attacked  his  army,  which  threw 
the  soldier  who  then  bore  the  standard  into  an  agony  of  fear, 
so  that  he  handed  it  over  to  another,  in  order  to  secure  his  own 
escape  from  the  battle.   As  soon,  however,  as  his  comrade  had 

Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  60;  61;  62;  iv,  33-36. 
^  Ibid.,  i,  28-29.    Cf.  supra,  pp.  77-79,  and  infra,  pp.  136-140. 
'  Eusebius :  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  7-9. 


loy]  THE  LEGEND-MAKERS  I07 

received  it,  and  he  had  withdrawn  and  resigned  all  charge  of 
the  standard,  he  was  struck  in  the  belly  by  a  dart,  which  took 
his  life.  Thus  he  paid  the  penalty  of  his  cowardice  and  un- 
faithfulness, and  lay  dead  on  the  spot;  but  the  other,  who  had 
taken  his  place  as  the  bearer  of  the  salutary  standard,  found 
it  to  be  the  safeguard  of  his  life.  For  though  he  was  assailed 
by  a  continual  shower  of  darts,  the  bearer  remained  unhurt, 
the  staff  of  the  standard  receiving  every  weapon.  It  was  in- 
deed a  truly  marvellous  circumstance,  that  the  enemies'  darts 
all  fell  within  and  remained  in  the  slender  circumference  of 
this  spear,  and  thus  saved  the  standard-bearer  from  death;  so 
that  none  of  those  engaged  in  this  service  ever  received  a 
wound.  This  story  is  none  of  mine,  but  for  this,  too,  I  am  in- 
debted to  the  emperor's  own  authority,  who  related  it  in  my 
hearing  along  with  other  matters. 

That  Constantine  was  not  averse  to  receiving  credit  for 
religious  virtues  even  on  contradictory  counts  is  shown,  if 
we  can  accept  Eusebius'  rendering  of  his  conversation  and 
his  speeches,  by  his  advancing  in  one  place  a  claim  to  life- 
long possession  of  Christian  piety,  and  in  another  place 
describing  his  radical  and  sudden  conversion  to  that  re- 
ligion.^ 

5.  Eusebiits  of  Caesar ea 

But  making  all  allowance  for  the  assistance  of  the  em- 
peror, Eusebius  himself  in  his  Oration  in  Praise  of  Con^ 
sfantine  and  his  Life  of  Constantine  was  the  chief  creator 
of  the  legend  of  a  saintly  emperor.  Of  the  former  of 
these,  the  author  himself  said  in  the  latter,^  "  we  have 
woven,  as  it  were,  garlands  of  words,  wherewith  we  en- 
circled his  sacred  head  in  his  own  palace  on  his  thirtieth 

*  Eusebius,  Oration  of  Constantine  to  the  Assembly  of  the  Saints 
(the  Easter  Sermon),  chap.  26;  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  49  and  51; 
i,  27.    Compare  these  with  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  28-32. 

2  Chapter  i. 


Io8  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [io8 

anniversary.''  The  first  part  ^  is  a  eulogy  of  Constantine's 
devoutness  and  religious  leadership,  and  of  the  magical 
efficacy  of  the  "  salutary  sign  "  by  which  he  conquered, 
mingled  with  analogies  of  Christianity  in  the  natural 
world.  The  last  part,  often  considered  a  separate  oration, 
is  a  general  exposition  of  the  true  doctrine  of  God  and  of 
the  incarnation  of  the  Word.  The  first  part  alone  concerns 
us.  It  is  a  panegyric  which  from  the  point  of  view  of  his- 
torical trustworthiness  is  not  superior  to  the  low  level  of 
the  time  to  which  it  belongs.  Extravagant  in  its  praises 
almost  to  the  point  of  blasphemy,^  its  statements  are  often 
gross  exaggerations,^  and  above  all  it  violently  twists  all 
of  Constantine's  motives  into  the  most  unselfish  prompt- 
ings of  saintliness.*  Eusebius  shows  in  Constantine  noth- 
ing but  a  superstitious  holy-man  who  turned  his  own  cham- 
bers into  an  oratory,  and  his  household  into  a  church,  and 
who  had  oft  repeated  visions  of  the  Saviour.^ 

The  viciousness  of  this  one-sided  eulogy  is  modified  by 
the  fact  that  Eusebius  himself  gives  notice  in  the  prologue 
that  he  proposes  not  a  narrative  of  ''merely  human  merits" 
or  "  merely  human  accomplisments  "  but  "  those  virtues  of 
the  emperor  which  heaven  itself  approves,  and  his  pious 
actions."  He  wants  to  "  close  the  doors  against  every  pro- 
fane ear,  and  unfold,  as  it  were,  the  secret  mysteries  of  our 
emperor's  character  to  the  initiated  alone."  He  thus  frankly 

^  Chapters  i-x. 

^  Eg.  i,  3  and  ix,  i8,  compared  with  Constantine's  domestic  tragedies. 
Eg.  I,  3;  8,  9;  9,  10  compared  with  actual  law  on  Sunday  Cod, 
Theod.  ii,  8,  i  and  Cod.  Just,  iii,  12,  3. 

*  iii,  5  and  6  attribute  Constantine's  overthrow  of  Diocletian's  sys- 
tem and  his  attainment  of  sole  rulership  to  an  imitation  of  God's  sole 
and  undivided  government  of  the  universe,  i,  6;  and  v,  5-7  attribute 
his  gorgeous  apparel  to  popular  demand  which  he  himself  despised. 

•^ix.  11:  18. 


109]  THE  LEGEND-MAKERS  IO9 

avows  his  intention  of  painting  upon  the  background  of 
Constantine's  career,  the  traits  of  an  ideal  Christian  em- 
peror for  the  edification  of  a  Christian  assembly.  It  may 
contain  historical  truth,  but  that  is  not  its  main  purpose. 
It  intentionally  ushers  us  into  the  realm  of  legend. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  Life  of  Constantine  written 
shortly  after  the  emperor's  death,^  and  in  places  built  upon 
material  from  the  Oration.^  There  is  more  historical  ma- 
terial in  the  later  work  but  its  tone  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
earlier.  Eusebius  not  only  extols  Constantine  as  the  di- 
vinely-appointed emperor  to  whose  elevation  no  man  con- 
tributed/ but  attributes  to  him  repeated,  direct,  and  mir- 
aculous revelations  of  God,  who  "  frequently  vouchsafed 
to  him  manifestations  of  himself,  the  divine  presence,  ac- 
cording to  him  manifold  intimations  of  future  events."  * 
It  is  a  serious  question  how  much  reliance  to  place  even  in 
the  speeches,  laws  and  letters  of  Constantine  embodied  in 
the  Life,  occasionally  with  professions  that  they  are  copied 
from  documents  in  Constantine's  own  handwriting  or  with 
his  signature.^  This  ostensibly  original  material  was  sav- 
agely attacked  along  with  the  general  reliability  of  the  Life, 
by  Crivellucci,  in  1888,*^  and  by  H.  Peter  in  1897,^  the 

M,  2. 

2(7/.  ix,  8;  viii;  ix,  15;  ix,  17  of  the  Oration  with  Book  ii. 
16;  iii,  54,  55;  iii,  50  and  iii,  41  of  the  Life  respectively.  The  notes 
in  the  English  translation  in  the  Nicene  and  Post  Nicene  Fathers, 
Eusebius,  pp.  591  and  593  make  the  strange  mistake  of  assuming  that 
the  Oration  uses  the  Life,  though  the  former  was  written  first  and  is 
mentioned  in  the  latter. 

3  i,  24  4    47,  5  ii^  47;  23. 

^  Storia  della  relatione  tra  lo  state  e  la  chiesa,  vol.  i,  appendix, 
"  Della  fede  storia  di  Eusebio  nella  vita  di  Costantino."  He  calls  it  a 
historical  novel. 

'  Die  geschichtliche  Litteratur  iiber  die  romische  Kaiserseit  bis 
Theodosius  I  und  ihre  Quellen.  He  calls  it  "methodical  falsification 
of  history,"  i,  249-250,  405  et  seq. 


no  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [no 

worthlessness  of  these  documents  was  assumed  by 
Mommsen  and  by  Seeck.  Benjamin  in  Pauly-Wissowa, 
Real  Encyclopddie  der  classischen  Altertumswissenschaft, 
wrote  summarily,  "  The  original  documents  [of  the  Life 
of  Constantine]  are  almost  all  forged  or  highly  question- 
able." ^  Gorres  calls  it  inferior  to  the  panegyrics  of  Eu- 
menius  and  Nazarius,  and  Manso  says  it  is  more  shame- 
less and  lying "  than  they.  Seeck,  however,  completely 
changed  his  view  by  1898,^  and  in  the  later  edition  of  his 
U  liter  gang  der  antiken  Welt  used  all  of  the  original  docu- 
ments in  the  Life  of  Constantine  as  genuine  in  accordance 
with  his  declaration  "  Eusebius'  reproduction  of  original 
documents  has  been  freed  from  every  suspicion."  * 
Schultze  in  his  "  Quellenuntersuchungen  zur  Vita  Constan- 
tini  des  Eusebius,"  *  occupies  commendable  middle  ground 
in  submitting  each  of  the  questioned  documents  to  thor- 
ough scrutiny  with  the  result  that  some,  e.  g.,  the  Edict 
to  the  Provincials  of  Palestine,^  are  rejected  as  forgeries  * 
and  some  are  accepted  as  genuine.'^  The  list  of  questioned 
documents  is  a  long  one,^  but  the  case  against  many  of 
them  seems  weak.^  There  are,  however,  statements  in 
others  which  show  that  they  either  are  forgeries  or  con- 

*  See  Article,  Constantin. 

2  "  Die  Urkunden  der  Vita  Constantini,'*  in  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  xviii,  pp. 
321-340. 

^Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  xxx  (1909),  p.  183. 

4  In  Zeitsch.  f.  K.  G.,  xiv  (1894),  p.  503  et  seq. 

5  Life  of  Constantine  ii,  24-42. 

*  In  this  particular  case  by  a  later  hand  than  that  of  Eusebius. 

Eg.  compare  Life  of  Constantine  iv,  26  and  Cod.  Theod.  viii,  16,  i. 
8ii,  23-42:  ii,  46:  ii,  48-60:  ii,  64-72:  iii,  17-20:  iii,  30-32:  iii,  52-53: 

iii,  60:  iii,  61:  iii,  62:  iii,  64-65:  iv,  9-13:  iv,  20:  iv,  35:  iv,  36: 

iv,  42 :  Appendix :  Oration  to  the  Saints. 

*  There  is  no  reason,  for  instance,  for  rejecting  the  letter  of  Con- 
stantine to  the  churches  after  the  Council  of  Nicea,  iii,  17-20. 


Ill] 


THE  LEGEND-MAKERS 


III 


tain  interpolations.^  The  work,  moreover,  contains  rather 
more  than  Eusebius'  usual  proportion  of  minor  inaccur- 
acies.^ His  Church  History  must  of  course  be  judged  in- 
dependently of  his  eulogies.  It  was,  for  the  time,  a  mag- 
nificent historical  work.  The  panegyrists  of  the  fourth 
century,  however,  and  Eusebius  is  no  exception,  did  not 
hold  themselves  up  to  even  the  relatively  low  standard  of 
truthfulness  that  prevailed  in  their  day  for  historical  writ- 
ings. They  offer  a  curious  parallel  to  the  writers  of  the 
Italian  renaissance,  who  were  not  without  merit  as  his- 
torians but  whose  literary  invectives  against  each  other 
were  pure  works  of  art,  not  to  be  believed  under  oath.  The 
Life  of  Consfantine  has  been  well  called  an  evidence  of 
Eusebius'  "  enthusiastic  admiration  for  what  he  consid- 
ered the  good  actions  of  the  deceased  emperor,  and  of  his 
skill  in  disguising  the  others.  No  trace  is  found  there  of 
the  murder  of  Crispus  and  that  of  Fausta;  the  author  has 
discovered  a  way  of  telling  the  story  of  the  Councils  of 
Nicea  and  of  Tyre,  and  the  ecclesiastical  events  connected 
with  them,  without  even  mentioning  the  names  of  Athana- 
sius  and  of  Arius.  It  is  a  triumph  of  reticence,  and  of  cir- 
cumlocution." ^ 

^  Eg.  iv,  9-13,  letter  to  the  king  of  Persia,  under  the  (later)  head 
ing  of  Sapor,  confuses  Sapor  II  the  grandson  of  Narses  and  the 
contemporary  of  Constantine  with  Sapor  I,  the  predecessor  of  Narses. 
Cf.  also  ii,  51  where  Constantine  says  he  was  a  boy,  koul^  iraig^''  at 
the  outbreak  of  the  Diocletian  persecution.    Cf.  also  supra,  pp.  53  et  seq. 

2  Cf.  ii,  3  with  i,  50,  and  both  with  the  Church  History,  x,  8  and  Mc- 
Giffert's  note  on  this  last  passage  in  the  N.  &  P.  N.  F.  translation,  iv,  53 
purporting  to  be  exact,  overstates  Constantine's  reign  by  about  a  year, 
iv,  5  and  6  probably  has  "Scythians"  for  "Goths";  no  such  war 
against  the  Scythians  is  known,  iv,  2  and  3  contradicts  the  well 
known  financial  pressure  of  Constantine's  reign,  iii,  21  and  66  en- 
tirely misstate  the  theological  situation  by  representing  that  peace 
reigned  after  the  Council  of  Nicea. 

'  Duchesne,  Early  History  of  the  Church  (Eng.  trans.),  vol.  ii,  p.  152. 


CHAPTER  II 


LEGENDS  OF  CONSTANTINE's  ORIGIN  AND  RISE  TO  IMPERIAL 
POSITION,  LEGENDS  ABOUT  HELENA 

I.  Legend  of  Claudian  Descent 

The  parentage  of  Constantine  and  the  beginning  of  his 
rule  in  Gaul  and  Britain  are  the  subject  of  such  abundant 
evidence  that  there  can  be  little  question  as  to  the  main 
historical  facts.^  He  was  born  at  Naissus  in  Dacia,  about 
274  A.  D.  (Seeck  puts  the  date  as  late  as  288  A.  D.^),  the 
son  of  Constantius  (later  Caesar  in  Gaul  and  Britain) 
and  of  his  concubine,  or  morganatic  wife,  Helena,  prob- 
ably a  chambermaid  before  her  connection  with  Con- 
stantius. He  spent  part,  at  least,  of  his  early  manhood 
in  the  East  at  the  court  of  Diocletian.  Hence  he  was 
summoned  by  his  father,  and  joined  him  at  Bononia 
(Boulogne)  in  time  to  accompany  him  on  his  last  ex- 
pedition into  northern  Britain.  Constantius  apparently 
designated  him  as  his  successor,  and  at  the  death  of  the 
father,  the  soldiers  acclaimed  the  son  Emperor  (306). 
Constantine  contented  himself  for  a  time  with  the  title  of 

Caesar  which  was  recognized  and  confirmed  by  Galer- 
ius.  His  administration  of  Gaul  and  Britain  was  entirely 
successful,  and  in  308  he  secured  recognition  as  an  Em- 
peror. By  his  victory  over  Maxentius  in  312  he  became 
sole  Emperor  in  the  West. 

The  first  legendary  variation  from  these  plain  historical 
facts  was  the  assertion  that  Constantine  was  descended 

1  Cf.  article  "  Constantin  "  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  Real  Encyclop'ddie  der 
classischen  Altertumswissenschaft. 
'  Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt,  vol.  i,  pp.  47,  435. 

112  [112 


113]  CONSTANTIXE'S  ORIGIN  AND  RISE  113 

from  the  Emperor  Claudius,  one  of  the  unimportant  con- 
testants of  the  throne  who  reigned  in  Gaul  (268-270). 
This  assertion  was  first  made  by  the  rhetorician  Eumenius 
in  a  panegyric  delivered  in  310  in  Constantine's  presence. 
The  orator  says  that  most  men  were  ignorant  of  the  fact, 
but  that  the  emperor's  intimate  friends  knew  it.  He  extols 
Claudius  as  the  first  to  restore  the  lost  and  ruined  disci- 
pline of  the  Roman  government, — praise  uncalled-for  by 
any  of  the  known  facts  of  that  ruler's  career.  Such  is  the 
greatness  of  Constantine's  two-fold  imperial  ancestry,  his 
eulogist  maintains,  that  possession  of  imperial  rank  adds 
nothing  to  his  honor.  He  reiterates  this  thought :  Con- 
stantine  was  not  made  ruler  by  any  accidental,  human  pur- 
pose, nor  by  any  favorable  circumstances,  he  deserved  the 
empire  by  his  birth.  The  imperial  palace  was  his  birth- 
r'ght.^  This  high-sounding  rhetoric  bears  every  evidence 
of  being  inspired,  not  by  the  facts  of  the  case,  but  by  the 
suggestion  of  the  ruler  in  whose  praise,  and  at  whose  in- 

1  Eumtnius,  Panegyriciis,  in  Pan.  Vet.  no.  vii,  (310  A.  D.)  Migne;  P.  L. 
viii,  col.  624  et  seq.,  chap,  ii,  et  seq.  A  primo  igitur  incipiam  originis 
tuae  numine  quod  plerique  adhuc  fortasse  nesciunt,  sed  qui  te  amant 
plurimum  sciunt.  Ab  illo  enim  Divo  Claudio  manet  in  te  avita  cognatio. 
qui  Romani  imperii  solutam  et  perditam  disciplinam  primus  reformavit 
....  Quamvis  igitur  ille  fecissimus  dies  proxima  religione  celebratus 
imperii  tui  natalis  habeatur,  quoniam  te  ipso  habitu  primus  ornavit : 
jam  tamen  ab  illo  generis  auctore  in  te  imperii  fortuna  descendit. 
Quin  imo  patrem  tuum  ipsum  vetus  ilia  imperatoriae  domus  praeroga- 
tiva  provexit;  ut  jam  summo  gradu,  et  supra  humanarum  rerum  fata 
consisteres,  post  duos  familiae  tuae  principes  tertius  imperator.  Inter 
omnes,  inquam,  participes  majestatis  tuae  hoc  habes,  Constantine, 
praecipium,  quod  imperator  es,  tantaque  est  nobilitas  originis  tuae, 
ut  nihil  tibi  addiderit  honoris  imperium,  nec  possit  fortuna  numini  tuo 
imputare  quod  tuum  est,  omissis  ambitu  et  suffragatione. 

Chap.  iii.  "  Non  fortuita  hominum  consensio  non  repentinus  ali- 
quis  favoris  eventus  te  principem  fecit.    Imperium  nascendo  meruisti." 

Chap.  iv.  "Sacrum  istud  palatium  non  candidatus  imperii;  sed 
designatus  intrasti,  confestimque  te  illi  paterni  lares  successorem 
videre  legitimum.  Neque  enim  erat  dubium,  quin  ei  comperet  haer- 
editas  quem  primum  imperatori  filium  fata  tribuissent." 


114  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [114 

stance  it  was  uttered.  The  story  of  Constantine's  Claudian 
descent  was  evidently  a  surprise  to  the  public,  it  could  only 
be  launched  as  something  known  all  the  time  to  favored 
friends.  The  implication  must  necessarily  have  been  that 
his  father,  Constantius,  was  an  illegitimate  son  of  Claud- 
ius, as  there  is  no  recognized  genealogical  connection. 

It  is  significant  that  the  panegyric  in  which  the  pronun- 
ciamento  was  made  was  delivered  shortly  after  the  execu- 
tion or  enforced  suicide  of  Constantine's  father-in-law, 
Maximian,  the  only  emperor  of  the  original  Diocletian  sys- 
tem from  whom  he  could  satisfactorily  derive  his  author- 
ity. It  is  taken  by  Dessau,  Seeck  and  others  as  being  the 
proclamation  under  Constantine's  direction,  of  a  new  prin- 
ciple of  legitimacy,  based  on  a  fictitious  genealogy.^  The 
substitution  of  hereditary  right  to  the  throne  for  the  Dio- 
cletian system  of  appointment  and  promotion  was  tempor- 
arily carried  through  successfully  by  Constantine's  military 
genius,  by  the  continued  succession  of  his  own  family  to  the 
throne,  and  by  the  adulation  of  his  admirers.  Eusebius 
went  the  length  of  writing  that  Constantius  "  bequeathed 
the  empire,  according  to  the  law  of  nature  to  his  eldest 
son,"  and  that  Constantine,  by  bestowing  his  sister,  Con- 
stantia,  upon  Licinius  in  marriage,  granted  him  the  privi- 
lege of  family  relationship  and  a  share  in  his  own  ancient 
imperial  descent."  The  Emperor  Julian,  Constantine's 
nephew,  accepted  the  Claudian  descent  of  the  family.^ 
Eutropius  represented  Constantine  as  the  grandson  of 
Claudius.^    Several  writers  described  him  as  the  nephew  ^ 

^  C/.  Dessau,  in  Hermes,  xxiv,  p.  341  et  seq.;  Seeck,  Untergang  d. 
antiken  Welt,  i,  pp.  iio-iii,  451,  487-488  (with  citations  of  sources); 
Pauly-Wissowa,  article  "  Constantin 

^  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  21;  i,  50;  cf.  Church  History,  x,  8,  4. 

s  Orat.,  i,  p.  6  D;  ii,  p.  51  C;  Caesars,  p.  313  D  (ed.  Hertlein). 

*  ix,  22.  ^Anon.  Vales.,  i,  i. 


II-]  CONSTANTINE'S  ORIGIN  AND  RISE  j  j 5 

or  grandnephew  ^  of  Claudius.  But  in  one  form  or  another 
the  relationship  was  established,  and  became  embodied  in 
the  general  belief. 

The  idea  of  hereditary  succession  to  imperial  power  was, 
of  course,  not  original,  nor  in  any  sense  unique,  with  Con- 
stantine.  It  was,  however,  important  in  this  connection  as 
the  repudiation  of  the  Diocletian  system.  Under  that  sys- 
tem the  imperial  power  was  divided  between  emperors 
with  whom  were  associated  Caesars,  chosen  for  their  merits 
with  a  view  to  the  transfer  of  the  higher  office  to  them 
through  the  voluntary  abdication  of  the  older  men.  The 
great  scheme  of  Diocletian  was  doomed  to  speedy  ruin 
through  personal  ambition  or  necessity,  and  through  family 
pride.  Imperial  power  continued  to  be  the  prize  in  whose 
pursuit  the  declining  military  resources  of  the  empire  were 
squandered.  Hereditary  succession  to  the  throne,  however, 
was  Constantine's  theoretical  substitute  for  the  Diocletian 
system,  and  it  seems  to  have  held  a  larger  place  in  the  fol- 
lowing generation  than  it  had  in  the  century  before  Dio- 
cletian. For  this,  Constantine's  personal  success,  and  the 
disposition  of  the  empire  at  his  death  were  chiefly  respon- 
sible. But  the  invention  of  a  fictitious  ancestry,  and  the 
legend  in  which  it  was  incorporated  must  also  be  given  due 
place  as  one  of  the  landmarks  in  the  development  of  the 
idea  of  an  hereditary  kingship.  While  the  significance  of 
the  whole  episode  is  largely  Roman  and  local,  it  neverthe- 
less aft'ords  an  interesting  instance  of  the  way  in  which 
some  of  the  very  foundations  of  society  have  been  but- 
tressed not  so  much  by  fact  as  by  legend.^ 

^  Hist.  Aug.,  Claudius,  13,  §2. 

2  Seeck  maintains  that  Constantine  consistently  tried,  even  to  his  own 
detriment,  to  uphold  the  Diocletian  system  {Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt, 
i,  pp.  70-71,  112,  176,  186  et  passim).  This  is  one  of  the  most  curious 
of  the  conclusions  to  which  he  is  led  by  fixing  on  a  motive  which  he 


Il6  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [ii6 

2.  Legends  of,  Helena  and  the  True  Cross 

If  legends  about  Constantine's  paternal  ancestry  were 
artfully  circulated  with  political  motives,  legends  about 
his  mother,  Helena,  were  the  spontaneous  product  of  pious 
imagination.  Her  pronounced  Christian  piety  not  only  led 
her  to  devote  much  of  her  energy  and  wealth  to  the  church 
and  to  make  a  famous  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  Land,^  but 
made  her  the  heroine  of  many  later  traditions.  Her  pil- 
grimage especially,  made  her  the  heroine  of  many  versions 
of  the  story  of  the  finding  of  the  true  cross,  one  of  the  most 
famous  of  all  Christian  legends.^ 

The  oldest  document  describing  the  finding  of  the  cross 
on  which  Christ  was  crucified  is  generally  thought  to  be 
that  embodied,  from  an  independent  narrative,  in  the  Doc- 
trine of  Addai,  which  book  relates  the  conversion  of  Abgar, 
king  of  Edessa,  by  Addai  or  Thaddeus.^ 

Here  Protonice,  wife  of  Emperor  Claudius,  is  converted 
by  Simon  (Peter)  at  Rome,  and  makes  a  pilgrimage  to 
Jerusalem  with  her  two  sons  and  her  daughter.  She  is  re- 
ceived with  honor  by  the  Apostle  James,  and  compels  the 
Jews  to  turn  over  to  him  Golgotha,  which  they  had  jeal- 
ously guarded.    She  herself  entered  the  grave  there,  where 

conceives  to  be  dominant  and  following  it  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
At  every  turn  Constantine  upset  the  Diocletian  system,  and  instead  of 
fitting  the  dynastic  idea  into  it  only  by  necessity,  the  latter  was  ad- 
vanced from  the  very  first.  If  he  bore  long  with  Licinius  it  may  well 
have  been  that  he  had  to  do  so,  or  deemed  it  advisable  on  other 
grounds  than  devotion  to  the  Diocletian  system.  If  it  is  agreed  that 
there  was  no  good  material  available  for  another  joint  emperor,  it  can 
hardly  be  proved  that  his  sons  were  any  better. 

1  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  42-43. 

2  Cf.  Acta  Sanctorum,  under  May  4,  I,  445. 

3  Edited  with  Syriac  text,  Eng.  trans,  and  notes  by  G.  Phillips  (1876), 
pp.  10-16.  Cf.  also  Duchesne:  Liber  PontiUcalis,  i,  p.  cviii  et  seq.; 
O.  Bardenhewer,  Patrologie  (Freiburg-i-  B),  Eng.  trans.,  Patrology, 
{St.  Louis,  1908),  p.  no. 


CONSTANTINE'S  ORIGIN  AND  RISE 


11/ 


the  cross  of  Christ  was  distinguished  from  the  crosses  of 
the  two  thieves  by  the  providential,  instantaneous  death  of 
her  daughter,  and  her  resurrection  when  the  true  cross  was 
placed  upon  her.  Protonice  gave  the  cross  to  James.  She 
then  built  a  great  and  splendid  building  over  Golgotha  on 
which  he  was  crucified,  and  over  the  grave  in  which  he 
was  placed,  so  that  these  places  might  be  honored."  When 
she  and  her  children  returned  to  Rom.e,  "  Claudius  com- 
manded that  all  the  Jews  should  go  forth  from  the  country 
of  Italy  ".^  This  legend  of  the  finding  of  the  true  cross 
represents  the  eastern  version.  In  the  west  it  was  overshad- 
owed by  a  very  different  account. 

Several  different  varieties  of  the  western  version  of  the 
story  of  the  finding  of  the  cross  have  come  down  to  us. 
These  ascribe  the  leading  part  in  the  recovery  of  the  cross 
to  Helena,  the  mother  of  Constantine.  This  group,  whether 
derived  from  the  legend  given  above,  the  Eastern  one,  or 
itself  the  original  version  of  it,  is  in  fact  the  dominant  one 
in  the  Middle  Ages.^ 

*  Syriac  scholars  and  church  historians  concur  in  dating  the  forged 
correspondence  of  Abgar  and  Christ  in  the  late  second  or  early  third 
century.  Eusebius  refers  to  it  as  among  accounts  of  ancient  times 
(Church  History  I,  13)  and  the  Abgar  legend  must  have  been  widely 
accepted  in  his  time.  This,  however,  does  not  prove  an  early  date 
for  all  the  stories  imbedded  in  the  Doctrine  of  Addai.  Though  the 
tendency  to-day  is  to  maintain  the  priority  of  many  Syrian  accounts 
as  against  Latin  and  Greek  stories  about  the  same  things,  it  seems  to 
me  that  in  some  instances  this  is  erroneous.  I  do  not  feel  at  all 
certain  that  the  story  of  Protonice  and  the  true  cross  may  not  be  a 
later,  modified  version  of  that  of  Helena  and  the  true  cross.  This 
doubt  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  a  church  was  almost  certainly 
built  over  the  supposed  sepulchre  of  Christ  in  the  time  of  Constantine, 
and  there  is  no  special  reason  for  thinking  one  had  been  built  there 
before  that. 

'  For  versions  of  this  lengend,  cf.  A.  Holder,  Inventio  sanctae  crucis^ 
Leipsic,  1889;  Mombritius,  Sanctuarium  sive  Vitae  sanctorum  (Paris, 
1910  ed.),  p.  376  et  seq.;  Acta  Sanctorum,  under  May  i,  ed.  Papebroch. 


Il8  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [ng 

In  one  account,  probably  the  older  variety,  Helena  has 
no  particular  difficulty  in  finding  the  three  crosses,  and  the 
right  one  is  ascertained  by  a  miracle  of  healing  in  a  test  sug- 
gested in  most  versions  by  Macarius,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.^ 

In  another  form,  after  many  difficulties,  the  crosses  are 
brought  to  light  by  Judas  Cyriac  under  orders  and  direc- 
tion of  Helena.  Both  forms  exist  in  Syriac,  Greek  and 
Latin.  The  original  Helena  legend,  as  well  as  that  of  Pro- 
tonice,  is  generally  believed  to  have  been  of  Syrian  origin. 
The  former,  if  we  can  judge  from  its  literary  associations, 
is  closely  connected  with  the  legends  of  Sylvester  both  in 
its  origin  and  in  its  later  development.  It  is  found  in  many 
manuscripts  with  the  Vita  Syhestri.^ 

In  one  form  or  another  the  legend  of  the  finding  of  the 
true  cross  by  Helena  became  widely  current  throughout 
Christendom.  Generally  it  displaced  accounts  in  which  the 
honor  was  assigned  to  other  persons.  Occasionally  two 
accounts  (e.  g.,  the  Protonice  legend  and  that  of  Helena) 
were  combined,  and  harmonized  by  having  the  cross  lost 
after  its  first  recovery.^   Authoritative  writers  in  the  West 

^  Cf.  Sozomen,  ii,  i ;  Socrates,  i,  17,  who  tells  of  the  recovery  also 
of  the  inscription  placed  by  command  of  Pilate  over  the  head  of 
Christ;  Theodoret  i,  18. 

2  Cf.  infra,  pp.  159,  164.  Cf.  E.  Nestle  in  Bysantinische  Zeitschrift, 
iv,  pp.  319-345.  For  the  whole  subject  of  Helena  and  the  cross,  see 
references  in  Bury's  ed.  of  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, ii,  p.  568;  Duchesne,  op.  cit.,  \,  p.  cvii  et  seq.;  Richardson,  in 
op.  cit.,  pp.  444-445 ;  Smith  and  Wace,  Diet,  of  Christian  Biography, 
art.  "  Helena".  An  old,  monumental  work  is  that  of  Gretser,  De  cruce 
Christi,  1600,  vol.  ii,  in  Opera,  Ratisbone  (Regensburg),  1734,  which, 
however,  is  entirely  uncritical.  More  recently  Nestle,  De  sancta  cruce, 
1889;  J.  Straubinger,  Die  KreuzaiifUndungslegende,  Untersuchungen 
iiber  ihre  altchristlichen  Fassungen  mit  hesonderer  Beriicksichtigung 
der  syrischen  Texte.  (Forschungen  zur  christlichen  Litteratur  und 
Dogmengeschichte,  vol.  xiii,  part  iii),  Paderborn,  1913. 

3  Duchesne  cites  a  Syriac  version,  MS.  British  Museum  12174. 


119] 


CONSTANTINE'S  ORIGIN  AND  RISE 


119 


and  East  from  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  assume  at  least 
the  recovery  of  the  true  cross  to  be  a  fact/ 

In  all  the  medieval  texts  vv^hich  give  in  full  the  legend 
ascribing  the  discovery  of  the  cross  to  Helena,  statement  is 
made  that  Constantine  was  instructed  in  Christianity  by 
Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  most  of  them  add  that  he 
was  also  baptized  by  the  same  bishop.  This  statement, 
however,  is  not  present  in  the  earlier  references  to  the  find- 
ing of  the  true  cross. ^  The  legend  of  the  finding  of  the 
cross  is  briefly  incorporated  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis  under 
the  life  of  Pope  Eusebius,  though  the  implication  that  the 
imperial  family  was  Christian  at  that  time  contradicts  the 
statements  given  later  that  Constantine  was  baptized  by 
Sylvester,  the  second  bishop  of  Rome  after  Eusebius." 

Of  the  disposition  made  of  the  cross  in  the  various 
legends  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  was  generally  either  left 
in  Jerusalem,  or  taken  to  Rome,  or  divided.  Part  was  even- 
tually supposed  to  have  been  taken  to  Constantinople.  One 
of  the  earliest  episodes  mentioned  in  connection  with  the 
cross  was  the  statement  that  Constantine  had  the  nails  of 
the  cross  put  in  his  diadem  or  helmet  and  in  the  bridle  of  his 
horse.*  This  latter  was  cited  as  fulfilling  the  prophecy  of 
Zachariah  xiv.  20:  "  On  the  bridles,  Holiness  to  the  Lord." 

The  most  decisive  argument  against  the  whole  story  of 
Helena  and  the  cross  is  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  it 

^  Ambrose,  Sermo  in  obit.  Theodosii  c.  46  (Migne.  P.  L.  vol.  xvi,  col. 
1399);  Rufinus,  Church  History  i,  7,  8;  Paul'nus  ep.  31;  Cassiodorus, 
Historia  tripartita,  ch.  ix;  Socrates  i,  17;  Sozomen  ii,  i ;  Theodoret  i,  18. 

2  Cf.  infra,  pp.  152-153  for  Ambrose  and  Rufinus. 

*  Ed.  Duchesne,  i,  167,  no.  xxxii.  "  Eusebius  natione  Graecus,  ex 
medico,  redit  ann.  vi  m.  i.  d.  iii.  Fuit  autem  temporibus  Constanti. 
Sub  hujus  temporibus  inventa  est  crux  domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  v 
non.  mai,  et  baptizatus  est  Judas  qui  et  Cyriacus." 

'  Ambrose  op.  cit.,  47,  Theodoret  and  Sozomen,  loc.  cit.  Seeck  gives 
the  incident  as  genuine. 


120  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [120 

in  Eusebius,  who  lived  in  Palestine  and  who  describes  her 
pilgrimage  and  her  building  of  churches  there  at  consid- 
erable length.  Newman's  argument  to  the  contrary  in  his 
Essays  on  Miracles  is  only  an  illustration  of  Gibbon's  say- 
ing that  "  The  silence  of  Eusebius  and  the  Bordeaux  pil- 
grim, which  satisfies  those  who  think,  perplexes  those  who 
believe."  ^ 

There  are  early  references  to  the  finding  of  the  cross; 
e.  g.,  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  vv^ithin  twenty-five  years  after 
Helena's  pilgrimage.  But  this,  at  most,  shows  that  the 
empress  mother  may  have  taken  back  with  her  from  Jeru- 
salem what  purported  to  be  relics  of  the  true  cross.  This 
much  of  an  historical  basis  for  the  legend  can  not,  of  course, 
be  disproved. 

3.  Later  Legends  of  C onstantine' s  Birth  and  Rise  to  Lm~ 
perial  Position 
Long  after  the  time  of  Constantine,  romances^ — they  can 
hardly  be  called  legends — sprang  up  about  his  mother, 
Helena,  his  father,  Constantius,  and  about  his  own  birth. 
The  best  known  of  these  is  that  told  by  Geoffrey  of  Mon- 
mouth ^  and  Pierre  Langloft "  and  mentioned  by  Henry  of 
Huntington,*  Richard  of  Cirencester,  Voragine,  and  others. 
This  is  to  the  effect  that  Constantius  was  sent  to  Britain  by 
the  Senate,  and  was  made  king  there,  and  married  Helena, 
daughter  of  Duke  Coel,  and  that  Constantine  was  thus  the 
son  of  a  British  princess.^ 

^  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ed.  Bury,  vol.  ii,  p.  456  n. 
The    Bordeaux  pilgrim  "  is  the  anonymous  itinerary  of  a  pilgrimage 
to  the  Holy  Land  in  333.    Cf.  Migne,  P.  L.  vol.  viii,  col.  783  et  seq. 
2  V,  6.  3     pp,  66-67.  *  i»  37- 

^  For  a  short  sketch  of  this  and  other  stories,  and  for  other  refer- 
ences, see  Richardson's  "  Prolegomena "  in  Nicene  and  Post  Nicene 
Fathers,  Second  Series,  vol.  i,  Eusebius,  p.  441.  A  story  in  Hakluyt's 
Voyages,  2  (1810),  p.  34,  attributes  angelic  virtues  and  superhuman 


I2l] 


CONSTANTINE'S  ORIGIN  AND  RISE 


121 


A  still  wilder  romance  is  that  edited  by  Heydenreich  in 
1879  from  a  fourteenth-century  manuscript.  It  makes 
Helena  a  noble  pilgrim  to  Rome  who  was  violated  by  the 
emperor  Constantius.  The  son  she  bore  was  named  Con- 
stantine  and  after  remarkable  adventures  was  recognized 
by  Constantius  and  made  heir  to  the  empire/  This  legend 
had  been  traced  back  to  a  seventh  or  eighth  century  story, 
which  was  apparently  widespread  in  two  general  types, 
Greek  and  Latin.  The  Greek  story  seems  to  be  the  earlier 
and  simpler.  It  is  to  the  effect  that  Constantius,  on  his  re- 
turn from  a  victory  over  the  Sarmatians,  had  intercourse 
at  an  inn  with  a  heathen  maid,  Helena,  with  whom  he  left 
imperial  insignia.  Later,  seeking  a  worthy  heir  to  the 
throne,  in  place  of  his  legitimate  but  feeble-minded  son, 
he  sent  out  an  official  who  stopped  at  the  same  inn.  Hel- 
ena's son  attracted  his  attention,  and  also  his  displeasure,  by 
mounting  one  of  the  royal  horses,  but  when  Helena  told 
that  her  son  was  the  offspring  of  the  emperor  and  displayed 
the  purple  robe,  the  boy  was  taken  to  Rome.  Here  he  was 
trained  in  the  command  of  troops  and,  as  Constantine,  be- 
came the  emperor's  heir.  The  Latin  form  varied  in  many 
places  from  this  story  and  added  many  embellishments,  such 
as  Helena's  pilgrimage  to  Rome  as  a  Christian  and  her  vio- 
lation on  the  journey  by  the  emperor,  his  rearing  of  her 
son  at  Rome  and  the  son's  distinguished  bearing  in  a  tour- 
ney, and  his  recognition  thereafter  as  the  emperor's  heir. 
A  romantic  episode  of  a  plot  by  certain  merchants  at  Rome 
also  crept  into  the  story.  Constantine  is  represented  as  hav- 
ing been  abducted  by  these  merchants  and  palmed  off  upon 

knowledge  to  this  British  princess  Helena,  and  tells  of  her  pilgrim- 
age to  Jerusalem,  her  death  at  Rome,  and  the  preservation  of  her 
body  in  Venice. 

1  Heydenreich  (ed),  Incerti  Auctoris  de  Constantino  Magno  ejusque 
Matre  Helena,  Leipsic,  1879. 


122  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [122 

the  Greek  emperor  as  a  prince,  so  that  he  married  his  daugh- 
ter to  the  young  man,  and  sent  the  couple  back  to  the  West, 
in  charge  of  the  merchants,  with  rich  presents.  The  mer- 
chants deserted  the  couple  and  made  off  with  the  booty. 
Constantine  and  his  bride  were  rescued,  and  eventually 
came  to  their  own.^ 

But  these  stories  and  others  equally  fanciful  take  us  be- 
yond the  borderline  of  legends  into  the  realm  of  pure 
romance.  In  many  of  them  the  use  of  Constantine's  name, 
rather  than  that  of  any  other  notable,  seems  merely  acci- 
dental ;  it  is  only  the  device  of  the  story-teller  to  add  inter- 
est to  his  tale. 

1  For  a  detailed  study  of  these  legends,  cf.  E.  Heydenreich,  "  Con- 
stantin  der  Grosse  in  den  Sagen  des  Mittelalters,"  Deutsch.  Zeitsch.  /. 
Geschichtswissenschaft  ix  (1893),  pp.  1-27. 


CHAPTER  III 


The  Hostile,  Pagan  Legend  of  Constantine 

I.  Its  M eagerness 

The  hostile,  pagan  legend  of  Constantine  is  compara- 
tively slight,  surprisingly  so  in  view  of  the  significance  of 
his  reign  for  paganism.  One  finds  less  than  one  would  ex- 
pect of  the  virulence  and  bitterness  and  wild  imagination 
that  characterized,  for  instance,  the  popular  Catholic  stories 
of  Luther,  or  the  southern  version  of  Lincoln  during  the 
Civil  War.  This  is  in  part  explained  by  the  destruction  of 
pagan  society  and  literature  which  the  two  centuries  after 
Constantine  brought  about.  Possibly  pagan  legends  afloat 
at  the  time  disappeared  so  completely  that  we  can  find  no 
trace  of  them.  Yet  a  number  of  pagan  writings  remain. 
Eutropius,  the  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae,  Sextus  Au- 
relius  Victor,  Praxagoras  Atheniensis,  Julian,  Libanius, 
Ammianus  Marcellinus,  Eunapius,  are  represented  to-day 
by  fragments  considerable  enough  to  insure  some  reference 
to  most  of  the  pagan  stories  about  the  first  Christian  em- 
peror. Furthermore,  the  Christian  writers  themselves  so 
often  quote  adversaries  whom  they  refute  that  we  can  count 
upon  them  giving  a  clue  to  most  legends  invented  or  be- 
lieved in  by  the  opponents  of  their  faith.  Yet  it  is  after 
all  a  meagre  yield  that  a  search  of  this  literature  reveals. 
The  explanation  must,  therefore,  in  part  be  sought  in  the 
fact  ment^'oned  above  that  contemporary  paganism  scarcely 
realized  that  Constantine's  reign  marked  the  beginning  of 
the  end  of  the  older  religions.^ 

^  Cf.  supra,  pp.  66-67. 
123]  123 


124 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[124 


2.  Emperor  Julian's  Version  of  Constantine 
The  emperor  Julian,  the  failure  of  whose  effort  to  restore 
paganism  and  to  discredit  Christianity  showed  how  far  the 
revolution  had  gone  and  how  permanent  it  promised  to  be, 
gives  us  our  first  glimpse  of  a  pagan  legend  hostile  to  the 
great  Constantine,  his  own  uncle.  In  his  formal  writings 
and  orations,  which  he  was  fond  of  composing,  Julian  gen- 
erally observed  the  utmost  of  imperial  decorum.  He  gave 
measured  and  stately  praise  to  his  predecessors,  even  those 
of  his  own  family.  In  one  of  his  orations,  however,  that 
on  the  Cynic  Heracleion,^  the  imperial  orator  made  a  veiled 
attack  upon  Constantine.  He  tells  a  long  and  curious  fable 
about  a  man  who  attained  great  wealth,  partly  by  inheri- 
tance and  partly  by  acquisitions  which  he  made,  "  wishing 
to  get  rich  by  fair  means  or  foul,  for  he  cared  little  for  the 
gods  His  success  was  due  to  a  certain  knack  and  to  luck, 
rather  than  to  any  real  ability.  At  his  death  there  came 
massacre  and  confusion,  a  natural  ^result  of  his  unscrupu- 
lousness  and  of  the  example  he  set  his  sons.^  The  rich  man 
of  the  parable  is  none  other  than  Constantine;  the  parable 
itself  nothing  but  a  bitterly  hostile  interpretation  of  his 
reign. 

In  "  The  Caesars  however,  Julian  made  an  open  at- 
tack upon  the  first  Christian  emperor.  This  work  is  an 
attempt  at  light  literature,  a  satire  written  for  the  Satur- 
nalia in  the  winter  following  Julian's  accession  to  the  throne. 
It  purports  to  describe  a  Saturnalian  Symposium  which 
Romulus  gives  in  honor  of  the  gods,  and  to  which  the 
Roman  emperors  and  Alexander  of  Macedon  are  invited. 
The  emperors  are  discussed  as  they  are  introduced  at  the 

•  "  Upog  UpaKXe/ov  Kvvikov.^'  Oratio  vii  in  Hertlein's  edition  of  Julian's 
works. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  295. 


125]  ™^  PAGAN  LEGEND  125 

banquet,  and  as  they  contend  for  the  prize  of  merit,  and 
again  at  the  end  of  the  book,  as  they  are  asked  their  sev- 
eral ambitions  and  assigned  to  their  proper  divine  patrons. 
On  each  occasion  JuHan  decries  Constantine's  character  and 
deeds.  His  admission  to  the  contest  for  the  highest  place 
among  the  emperors  is  challenged  by  Dionysos  on  the 
ground  of  his  imperfections  and  his  lack  of  zeal  for  the 
gods,  and  he  is  finally  grudgingly  admitted  to  the  contest 
as  a  man  "  not  lacking  valor,  but  entirely  mastered  by 
pleasure  and  dissipation."  ^ 

In  pleading  his  cause  Constantine  is  embarrassed  by  con- 
sciousness of  the  pettiness  of  his  achievements  for,  if  the 
truth  must  be  told,  of  the  tyrants  he  overcame,  one  was  un- 
warlike  and  effeminate,  and  the  other  unfortunate  and  in- 
capacitated by  age,  and  both  were  hated  by  gods  and  men. 
As  to  the  barbarians,  his  efforts  against  them  were  laugh- 
able, for  he  gave  them  tribute,  and  spent  everything  on 
pleasure."  ^  After  looking  lovingly  at  the  Moon,  and  after 
a  vainglorious  speech,  Constantine  was  put  to  shame  by 
Silenus,  the  clown  of  the  symposium,  in  a  joking  compari- 
son of  his  deeds  to  hothouse  plants  that  were  green  for  a 
little,  but  soon  withered.^  Later,  after  an  exalted  discourse 
by  Marcus  Aurelius,  the  hero  of  the  booklet,  on  his  desire 
"  to  be  like  the  gods  ",  Hennes  asked  Constantine,  "  And 
what  do  you  consider  noble?"  "To  get  great  sums,"  he 
said,  "  and  to  spend  them  upon  your  own  desires,  and  in 
gratifying  those  of  your  friends."  * 

At  the  close  of  "  The  Caesars  ",  as  each  emperor  chooses 
his  patron,  occurs  the  following  remarkable  passage: 

^Julian,  Opera,  Ed.  Hertlein,  i,  p.  408,  1.  6-16. 

^  Ihid.,  i,  p.  422,  1.  7-15. 

3  Ihid.,  i,  p.  422,  1.  15 — p.  423,  1.  18. 

^  Ihid.,  \,  p.  430,  1.  4-8. 


126 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[126 


But  Constantine,  not  finding  among  the  gods  a  pattern  for  his 
hfe,  perceiving  Wantonness  near,  ran  to  her.  And  she,  re- 
ceiving him  tenderly,  and  embracing  him,  covered  him  with 
flowery  feminine  robes,  and  led  him  to  Perdition  ('A^wWa), 
so  that  he  found  Jesus,  who  turned  around  and  harangued 
them  all :  Whoever  is  a  seducer,  whoever  is  defiled  with 
blood,  whoever  is  under  a  curse  and  abominable,  come  hither 
boldly,  for,  washing  him  in  this  water,  I  will  make  him  imm'e- 
diately  pure,  and  if  he  falls  again  into  the  same  faults,  I  will 
make  him  pure  again  when  he  beats  his  breast  and  knocks  his 
head."  And  he  very  gladly  staid  with  him  and  led  his  chil- 
dren from  the  assembly  of  the  gods.  But  the  demons,  aven- 
gers of  blood,  tormented  him,  and  them  no  less,  administering 
justice  for  the  blood  of  kindred;  until  Zeus,  on  account  of 
Claudius  and  Constantine,  made  them  desist.^ 

This  is,  of  course,  an  echo  of  the  old  accusation  that  the 
Christians  v^elcomed  the  scum  of  the  earth  into  their  fel- 
lowship and  encouraged  crime  by  the  promise  of  forgive- 
ness.^ It  may  have  been  adapted,  as  a  parody,  from  the 
words  of  Eusebius  in  his  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine,* 
"  as  a  gracious  Saviour  and  physician  of  the  soul,  calls  on 
the  Greek  and  the  Barbarian,  the  wise  and  the  unlearned, 
the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  servant  and  his  master,  the  sub- 
ject and  his  lord,  the  ungodly,  the  profane,  the  ignorant, 
the  evil-doer,  the  blasphemer,  alike  to  draw  near,  and  hasten 
to  receive  his  heavenly  cure." 

If  the  passage  in  question  be  a  genuine  part  of  "  The 

1  Julian,  Opera  Ed.  Hertlein,  i,  431,  1.  7  et  seq.  The  text  of  this  pas- 
sage is  uncertain.  Some  of  the  best  MSS.  omit  the  reference  to  Jesus 
and  his  speech,  others  read  "the  son"  instead  of  "Jesus."  I  have  fol- 
lowed the  reading  adopted  by  Hertlein  in  the  body  of  his  text. 

^  For  a  philosophical  discussion  of  this  charge  and  of  the  potency  of 
conversion  in  working  a  moral  transformation,  cf.  Origen,  Contra  Cel- 
sum.  Book  iii,  chapters  62-69. 

3  Chapter  xi,  5. 


127] 


THE  PAGAN  LEGEND 


127 


Caesars,"  as  I  think  it  is,  it  expresses  Julian's  scorn  of  the 
Christian  idea  of  conversion,  and  especially  of  the  idea  of 
the  magic  efficacy  of  baptism.  Its  implied  denunciation  of 
Constantine,  "whoever  is  a  seducer,  whoever  is  defiled  with 
blood,  whoever  is  under  a  curse  and  abominable,"  is  one  of 
the  bitterest  attacks  that  has  survived.  The  punishment  of 
Constantine  which  followed  when  the  demons,  avengers 
of  blood,  tormented  him  and  them  [Constantine's  sons] 
no  less,  administering  justice  for  the  blood  of  kindred  " 
serves  to  emphasize  the  mockery  of  the  parody.  In  the 
whole  passage  the  killing  of  relatives  is  emphasized  de- 
filed with  blood  "  under  a  curse  "  avengers  of  blood  ", 
"  justice  for  the  blood  of  kindred  ")  as  the  greatest  crime 
of  Constantine.  This  bloodguiltiness  coupled  with  the 
Christian  promise  of  ready  forgiveness  and  purification 
through  baptism,  are  the  elements  which  gave  rise  to  the 
pagan  legend  of  Constantine's  conversion.  Owing  to  the 
satirical  vein  in  which  The  Caesars  "  is  written,  it  is,  per- 
haps, not  safe  to  infer  that  Julian  actually  attributed  Con- 
stantine's adoption  of  Christianity  to  the  promise  which 
was  held  out  to  him  of  pardon  for  a  profligate  career  and 
for  the  murder  of  kindred.  But,  that  Constantine  was  a 
reprobate  and  that  his  adoption  of  Christianity  was  at  once 
a  sign  and  a  completion  of  his  moral  turpitude,  is  plainly 
the  burden  of  Julian's  story.  This,  whether  original  with 
Julian  or  current  before  he  wrote,  is  a  palpable  distortion 
of  Constantine's  career.  The  execution  of  his  son,  Crispus, 
his  wife,  Fausta,  and  other  near  relatives,  is  proven,  but 
there  is  no  historical  evidence  that  he  sought  in  Christianity 
release  from  remorse  for  these  executions  within  his  family 
circle.  Indeed,  such  a  view  is  rendered  impossible,  not  only 
by  Constantine's  postponement  of  baptism  and  his  general 
attitude  toward  the  church,  but  by  the  fact  that  he  was 
committed  to  the  new  religion  before  these  executions,  and 
by  many  other  considerations. 


128  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [128 


3.  Developijient  of  the  Pagan  Legend  of  Constantine 

Certain  it  is,  however,  that  the  legend  soon  became  cur- 
rent among  pagan  writers  that  Constantine  became  a 
Christian  because  that  religion  alone  received  him  after  the 
execution  of  his  son  and  wife,  and  promised  him  forgive- 
ness for  the  great  crimes  he  had  committed.  Count  Zosi- 
mus,  one  of  the  best-knowm  pagan  writers  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, incorporated  the  story  in  his  Historia  Nova.  He  is  a 
partisan  and  not  a  first-rate  authority  as  to  the  history  of 
the  fourth  century ;  his  work  is  largely  a  mediocre  compila- 
tion from  Eunapius  and  Olympiodorus.  These  very  con- 
siderations, however,  make  his  narrative  invaluable  as  a 
source  for  the  current  pagan  version  of  Constantine's  rela- 
tion to  Christianity.  He  asserted  that  Constantine  was  a 
pagan  until  late  in  his  reign.  Then,  after  he  had  executed 
his  son  Crispus,  an  able  and  excellent  young  man,  and  his 
wife  Fausta.  he  was  stricken  w^ith  remorse  and  asked  the 
philosopher  Sopater  how  he  might  obtain  expiation.  So- 
pater  replied  that  for  such  crimes  no  expiation  was  possible. 
An  Egyptian  priest,  however,  coming  from  Spain  (prob- 
ably to  be  identified  with  Hosius)  held  forth  the  promise  of 
forgiveness  through  repentance  and  baptism,  and  gained  an 
ascendancy  over  the  emperor  w-hich  could  be  accounted  for 
only  by  magic.  Constantine  turned  therefore  to  Christian- 
ity for  relief  and  became  an  adherent  of  that  religion.^ 

^  Zosimus,  Historia  Nova,  ii,  29,  3.  Stated  also,  and  refuted  in  Sozo- 
men,  i,  5.  Seeck  {Untergang  d.  antiken  Welt,  iii,  213,  477)  assumes  a 
common  source  from  which  the  Epitome  of  Victor,  the  account  of  Zosi- 
mus, and  that  of  John  the  Monk  in  the  Vita  S.  Artemii  (AA.SS., 
8th  October)  draw,  which  stated  that  Fausta  charged  Crispus  with 
offering  her  violence.  Crispus  was  therefore  executed;  then  Helena 
persuaded  Constantine  that  Fausta  was  the  guilty  one,  and  induced 
him  to  kill  her  by  an  overheated  bath.  Then  Constantine  repented,  the 
heathen  priests  declared  that  his  deeds  could  not  be  expiated,  Chris- 
tianity offered  forgiveness,  so  he  became  a  Christian. 


129] 


THE  PAGAN  LEGEND 


I2g 


This  account,  growing,  possibly,  out  of  Julian's  satire 
and  developed  by  an  unknown  writer  whose  work  was  used 
by  Zosimus  and  others,  received  doubtless  various  embel- 
lishments. We  find  a  much  later  writer,  Codinus  (about 
1450),  who  in  part  used  earlier  sources  now  lost,  touching 
up  the  story  of  Crispus'  death  with  the  statement  that  Con- 
stantine  afterwards  erected  a  statue  of  Crispus  in  pure 
silver  with  the  inscription  "  My  unjustly  treated  son  ",  and 
did  further  penance/ 

This  pagan  legend  had  a  comparatively  small  sphere  of 
action  for  it  was  quickly  denied  by  Christian  writers  ^  and 
received  little  credence  in  later  Christian  centuries.  Sozo- 
men's  refutation  of  Zosimus  is  probably  the  best  one.  It  is 
to  the  effect  that  Crispus  "  did  not  die  till  the  twentieth 
year  of  his  father's  reign,  and  many  laws  framed  with  his 
sanction  are  still  extant"  as  "can  be  proved  by  referring  to 
the  dates  affixed."  That  Sopater,  or  Sosipater  as  he  calls 
him,  could  hardly  have  dwelt  in  Gaul,  in  Britain,  or  in  the 
neighboring  countries,  in  which,  it  is  universally  admitted, 
Constantine  embraced  the  religion  of  the  Christians,  pre- 
vious to  his  war  with  Maxentius,  and  prior  to  his  return 
to  Rome  and  Italy;  and  this  is  evidenced  by  the  dates  of  the 
laws  which  he  enacted  in  favor  of  religion."  And  further- 
more a  pagan  philosopher  would  not  be  ignorant  that  Her- 
cules was  purified  at  Athens  by  the  celebration  of  the  mys- 
teries of  Ceres,  after  the  murder  of  his  children  and  of  his 
guest,  and  that  the  Greeks  [i.  e.,  pagans]  held  that  purifica- 
tion from  guilt  of  this  nature  could  be  obtained. 

Evagrius'  refutation  of  Sozimus  is  far  inferior  to  that 
of  Sozomen.    He  first  refutes  in  a  most  quixotic  fashion 

1  De  signo,  ed.  Bekker,  Bonn,  1843,  pp.  62-63. 

2  E.  g.,  iSozomen,  i,  5  ;  Evagrius,  iii,  40-41 ;  Cyril,  adv.  Julian,  book  vii. 
'  Book  iii,  chaps,  40,  41. 


130  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [130 

Sozimus'  declaration  that  Constantine  imposed  a  new  tax, 
chrysargyrium,  upon  merchants  and  others  including  pub- 
lic harlots,  by  citing  instances  of  Constantine's  liberality  in 
the  building  of  Constantinople  and  toward  the  army,  adding 
"  How  thou  canst  then  maintain  that  the  same  person  could 
be  so  liberal,  so  munificent,  and  at  the  same  time  so  paltry 
and  sordid,  as  to  impose  so  accursed  a  tax,  I  am  utterly  un- 
able to  comprehend."  That  is,  Constantine  spent  so  much 
money  it  is  impossible  to  think  of  him  levying  such  a  tax! 
He  proceeds  to  prove  that  Constantine  did  not  execute 
either  Fausta  or  Crispus  by  adducing  tributes  to  Constan- 
tine's mildness  by  Eusebius,  his  Christian  panegyrist,  and 
by  the  passage  in  Eusebius'  Church  History  ^  in  which  Cris- 
pus is  commended,  and  these  he  clinches  as  follows :  "  Euse- 
bius, who  survived  Constantine,  would  never  have  praised 
Crispus  in  these  terms,  if  he  had  been  destroyed  by  his 
father."  To  modern  writers,  this  passage  is  merely  one  of 
the  proofs  that  the  Church  History  was  written  before  the 
execution  of  Crispus  in  326  and  was  not  revised  at  this 
point.  The  contention  that  Crispus  was  not  executed  at 
all,  is  one  of  the  instances  in  which  the  defense  of  Constan- 
tine overshot  the  mark. 

It  was  the  eventual  supremacy  of  Christianity  and  the 
disappearance  of  paganism  as  a  distinct  power,  perhaps 
more  than  the  arguments  of  Christian  historians,  that  sup- 
pressed this  pagan  legend  of  Constantine's  conversion. 

^  X,  9. 


CHAPTER  IV 


EARLY  LEGENDS  OF  DIVINE  AID,  CONVERSION^  AND 
SAINTLINESS 

I.  Pagan  and  Christian  Legends  of  Divine  Aid 

While  Constantine  was  yet  a  pagan,  in  Gaul,  pagan  ora- 
tors extolled  the  peculiar  solicitude  of  the  gods  for  him.. 
Reference  has  already  been  made  to  Eumenius'  description, 
in  his  paneg}Tic  of  310,  of  the  close  tie  between  Constantine 
and  Apollo.^  Pagan  orators  also  attributed  divine  aid  to 
Constantine  in  his  earlier  Gallic  wars,  and  in  his  Italian 
campaign  against  Maxentius." 

The  panegyric  of  313,  to  quote  one  of  a  dozen  similar 
passages,  describes  Constantine  as  having  access  in  the  for- 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  75  et  seq. 

'  Seeck,  op.  cit.,  i,  491,  Richardson,  in  Xicene  and  Post  Nicene  Fathers 
(second  series,  vol.  i),  Eusebius,  p.  490,  and  others  assert  that  these 
pagan  panegyrists,  and  the  phrase  instinctu  divinitatis "  on  the  tri- 
umphal arch  refer  vaguely  to  the  vision  of  the  monogram.  They  over- 
look the  fact  that  Eumenius  described  a  peculiar  intimacy  betweea 
Constantine  and  heavenly  powers  in  the  panegyric  of  310,  before  the 
campaign  against  Maxentius  (cf.  supra,  p.  75). 

Nazarius,  the  pagan  panegyrist,  also  predicates  divine  protection  for 
Constantine  on  several  different  occasions  and  uses  the  phrase  "  divino 
instinctu "  with  reference  to  an  entirely  different  situation  from  that 
described  by  Lactantius.  Nazarius,  Paneg.  (in  Paneg.  Vet.,  No.  X) 
chaps.  14-17,  19,  26;  and  Inrerti  Paneg.,  probably  by  Nazarius,  in 
313  (in  Paneg.  Vet.,  No.  ix)  chaps.  2  et  seq.;  in  Migne.  P.  L.;  viii, 
cols.  592-595  and  cols.  655  ef  seq..  respectively.  Cf..  also,  infra,  p.  132^ 
n.  2,  end. 
131] 


132 


COXSTAXTIXE  AXD  CHRISTIAXITY 


mation  of  his  plans  to  the  supreme  divine  wisdom  while 
other  mortals  are  left  to  the  care  of  the  lesser  eods/  The 
story  of  heavenly  warriors  seen  marching  in  behalf  of 
Constantine  before  a  decisive  engagement  is  told  first  in  a 
pagan  source,  the  panegyric  of  Nazarius  at  Rome  in  321. 
He  tells  how  all  Gaul  talked  of  the  vision  of  celestial  armies, 
led,  in  the  opinion  of  the  orator,  by  Constantius,  flying  to 
the  aid  of  Constantine  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  with 
Maxentius."  He  believes  that  this  celestial  army  has  al- 
ways been  fighting  for  Constantine  but  is  now  for  the  first 
time  revealed  to  other  men.  His  deduction  is  not  that  Con- 
stantine received  a  revelation  of  the  Christian  god,  but  that 
after  witnessing  this  heavenly  apparition  men  have  no  rea- 

1  Quisnam  te  Deus,  quae  tam  praesens  hortata  est  majestas,  ut  om- 
nibus fere  tuis  comitibus  et  ducibus  non  solum  tacite  mussantibus  seci 
etiam  aperte  timentibus,  contra  consilia  hominum  contra  haruspicum 
monita  ipse  per  temet  liberandae  urbis  tempus  venisse  sentires?  Habes 
profecto  aliquod  cum  ilia  mente  divina,  Constantine,  secretum,  quae 
delegata  nostri  diis  minoribus  cura,  uni  se  tibi  dignatur  ostendere. 
Incerti  Paneg.,  in  Paneg.  Vet.,  no.  ix,  chap,  2,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  col. 
655. 

^  In  ore  denique  est  omnium  Galliarum,  exercitus  visos  qui  se  divi- 
nitus  missos  prae  se  ferebant.  Et  quamvis  coelestia  sub  oculos  homi- 
num venire  non  soleant,  quod  crassam  et  caligantem  aciem  simplex  et 
inconcreta  substantia  naturae  tenuis  eludat;  illi  tamen  auxiliatores  tui 
aspici  audirique  patientes,  ubi  meritum  tuum  testificati  sunt,  mortalis 
visus  contagium  refugerunt.  Sed  quaenam  ilia  fuisse  dicitur  species? 
qui  vigor  corporum?  quae  amplitudo  membrorum?  quae  alacritas  vol- 
untatum?  Flagrabant  verendum  nescio  quid  umbone  corusci,  et  coeles- 
tium  armorum  lux  terribilis  ardebat;  tales  enim  venerant,  ut  tui  cre- 
derentur.  Haec  ipsorum  sermocinatio,  hoc  inter  audientes  ferebant. 
Constantinum  petimus,  Constantino  imus  auxilio.  Habent  profecto  et 
divina  jactantiam,  et  coelestia  quoque  tangit  ambitio.  Illi  coelo  lapsi, 
illi  divinitus  missi  gloriabantur  quod  tibi  militabant.  Duccbat  hos, 
credo,  Constantius  pater,  qui  terrarum  triumphis  altiori  tibi  cesserat,  di- 
vinas  expeditiones  jam  divus  agitabat.  Magnus  hie  quoque  pietatis 
tuae  fructus,  quod  quamvis  particeps  coeli  ampliorem  se  fieri  gratia 
tua  senserit,  et  cujus  munera  in  alios  influere  jam  possent,  in  eum 
ipsum  tua  munera  redundarint.  Nazarius,  Paneg.,  chap.  14,  in  Migne, 
P.  L.,  viii.  cols.  592-593.  Cf.  ibid.,  chap.  16,  "Quis  est  hominum  quin 
opitulari  tibi  deum  credat?"  This  in  reference  to  Constantine's  early 
campaigns  in  Gaul  against  Ascarius  and  Regaisus. 


133]  EARLY  LEGEXDS  1 33 

son  now  to  doubt  the  story  that  Castor  and  Pollux  took 
visible  part  in  battles  of  old/ 

A  somewhat  similar  occurrence  is  described  as  taking 
place  in  the  decisive  campaign  against  Licin'us.  But  this 
time  the  narration  comes  from  a  Christian  writer,  none 
other  than  Eusebius,  the  '*  father  of  Church  History  and 
dates  from  a  time  shortly  after  Constantine's  death,  long 
after  the  favorite  of  the  gods  had  cast  in  his  fortunes  with 
the  Christians.  Eusebius  tells  how  detachments  of  Con- 
stantine's  army  were  seen  marching  through  cities  at  noon- 
day, though  in  reality  not  a  single  soldier  was  present  at  the 
time.  He  adds,  This  appearance  was  seen  through  the 
agency  of  divine  and  superior  power."  -  Eusebius'  account 
was  written  at  least  fifteen  years  later  than  Xazarius' ;  if 
there  is  any  direct  connection  between  the  two  the  idea  of 
miraculous  manifestations  in  behalf  of  Constantine  must 
have  been  suggested  to  the  Christian  by  the  pagan.  Nq 
connection,  however,  can  be  proved,  and  it  is  more  probable 
that  each  merely  gave  utterance  to  popular  tales  current  in 
his  own  environment. 

The  historical  fact  seems  to  be  that  direct  intervention  of 
God  or  gods,  angels  or  demons,  figured  in  most  stories  of 
great  events,  whether  narrated  by  Christians  or  pagans. 
Constantine's  pagan  eulogists  in  Gaul,  or  from  Gaul, 
extolled  the  activities  of  the  gods  in  his  behalf  at  least 
as  late  as  the  year  three  hundred  and  twenty-one.  As 
Constantine's  victories  turned  to  the  benefit  of  the  Chris- 
tians, they,  in  turn,  assumed  a  direct  interposition  of 
their  God  in  his  affairs.  As  we  have  seen.  Constan- 
tine used  Christian  emblems  as  his  luck  tokens  as 
early  as  the  year  three  hundred  and  twelve,  but  he  took 
no  action  that  precipitated  an  open,  violent  break  with 

*  Op.  cit.,  chaps.  19  and  15  respectively. 

^  Life  of  Constantine,  ii.  6.  For  another  instance  of  divine  aid  cited 
by  Eusebius,  cf.  ibid.,  i,  47. 


2  34  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [134 

paganism.  The  future  was  with  the  Christians.  Though 
Nazarius  could  give  the  pagan  interpretation  of  Constan- 
tine's  marvelous  victories  as  late  as  321,  the  emperor  him- 
self became  more  and  more  definitely  Christian  in  his  ideas 
and  in  his  policy.  It  was  the  Christian  god  who  fought  for 
him  and  gave  him  the  victory. 

This  fact,  if  we  may  believe  Eusebius,  found  recognition 
in  Constantine's  preparations  for  battle,  as  well  as  in  the 
superstitious  reverence  paid  to  the  Christian  labarum.  In 
the  old  days  the  Roman  armies  had  their  praetorian  altars, 
their  questioning  of  the  omens  before  important  actions, 
and  their  rituals  for  gaining  the  favor  of  the  gods.  Con- 
stantine's new  faith  sought  precisely  the  same  objects  as 
did  the  old  pagan  worship,  but  it  was  directed  toward  an- 
other deity  and  found  somewhat  different  expression.  He 
is  said,  in  preparation  for  battle,  to  have  pitched  a  taber- 
nacle of  the  cross  outside  the  camp  and  to  have  retired  to 
-it  to  pray.  "  And  making  earnest  supplications  to  God,  he 
was  always  honored  after  a  little  with  a  manifestation  of 
His  presence.  And  then,  as  if  moved  by  a  divine  impulse, 
he  would  rush  from  the  tabernacle,  and  suddenly  give 
orders  to  his  army  to  move  at  once,  without  delay,  and  on 
the  instant  to  draw  their  swords."  ^  This  last  corresponds 
with  what  we  know  of  his  military  tactics ;  a  sudden,  irre- 
sistible assault  won  most  of  his  battles.  The  tabernacle 
outside  the  camp,  and  the  mysterious  consulting  of  the 
-deity  suggest  forms  of  divining  common  among  primitive 
•and  even  more  advanced  peoples ;  it  may  well  be  regarded 
in  this  case  as  a  Christian  substitute  for  the  pagan  practice 
of  consulting  the  omens.  Some  suggestion  of  details  came 
perhaps  from  the  narratives  in  the  Old  Testament  about 
Moses  and  the  tabernacle.^    The  comparison  of  Constan- 

1  EuSebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  ii,  12-14.  For  the  labarum,  cf.  supra, 
■pp.  106-107. 

^  Cf.  especially,  Ex.  xxxiii,  7  et  seq. 


135]  EARLY  LEGENDS  I35 

tine  to  Moses  was,  at  least,  common  among  Christian 
writers;  Eusebius  repeatedly  likened  him  to  a  new  Moses, 
in  the  events  of  his  life  and  in  his  divine  mission.^  With 
no  other  Jewish  or  Christian  worthy  was  he  so  frequently 
compared. 

Sozomen  embellished  Eusebius'  account  with  details  about 
the  tabernacle,  and  adds  the  significant  statement,  From 
that  period  the  Roman  legions,  which  now  were  called  by 
their  number,  provided  each  its  own  tent,  with  attendant 
priests  and  deacons."  ^  The  Roman  army  was  now  defi- 
nitely under  the  auspices  of  the  God  of  the  Christians. 
Legends  of  the  miraculous  aid  of  pagan  gods  had  given 
place  altogether  to  legends  of  the  aid  which  the  true  God 
had  vouchsafed  to  Constantine.  It  is  little  wonder  that  in 
the  fifth  century  many  a  pagan  writer  found  that  the  facts 
of  his  own  time  gave  little  ground  for  belief  in  any  divinei 
aid  whatever  being  granted  to  the  Roman  legions  and  at- 
tributed the  decline  of  the  Empire  to  its  desertion  of  its  old 
religion. 

2.  Early  Legends  of  C onstantine' s  Miraculous  Conversion 

It  was  inevitable  that  Constantine's  support  of  Christian- 
ity would  be  attributed  sooner  or  later  to  a  miraculous  con- 
version. This  is  shown  by  the  different  legends  upon  the 
subject  which  sprang  up  at  various  times  from  independent 
origins.  The  earliest,  and  the  most  famous,  comes  direct 
from  Eusebius  and  perhaps  ultimately  from  Constantine 
himself.  We  have  seen  that  the  former's  eulogistic  Life  of 
the  latter  is  full  of  references  to  continued  supernatural 
revelations  of  God  vouchsafed  to  the  emperor.  Most  of 
these  references  are  known  only  to  those  who  have  read 


1  C/.  Church  History,  ix,  9,  5;  8;  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  12. 
'  Ecclesiastical  History,  i,  8. 


136  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [135 

the  Life,  but  the  story  of  the  first  of  these  revelations  is 
familiar  to  all.  Eusebius  not  only  gave  a  circumstantial  ac- 
count of  the  manifestation,  but  in  this  connection  ascribes 
the  emperor's  conversion  to  it.  The  campaign,  therefore, 
v^hich  furnished  pagan  panegyrists  v^ith  their  last  opportu- 
nity to  picture  the  intervention  of  their  gods  on  Constan- 
tine's  behalf,  became  to  a  large  part  of  the  Christian  world 
not  only  its  first  opportunity  to  portray  its  God  as  the  ar- 
biter of  victory,  but  the  setting  of  a  magnificent  picture  of 
the  miraculous  conversion  of  the  great  emperor  to  its 
faith. 

The  importance  of  this  legend  justifies  its  description  in 
the  v^ords  of  its  earliest  narrator.  Eusebius  tells  how  Con- 
stantine  was  moved  at  the  thought  of  the  tyrannous  oppres- 
sion of  Rome  by  Maxentius  to  attempt  the  overthrow  of 
the  tyrant.  Knowing  the  insufficiency  of  his  own  military 
forces  on  account  of  the  wicked  and  magical  enchant- 
ments which  were  so  diligently  practiced  by  the  tyrant,  he 
sought  divine  assistance."  Pondering  over  the  contrast  be- 
tween the  prosperous  career  of  his  own  father,  who  had 
"  honored  the  one  Supreme  God  during  his  whole  life,"  and 
the  unhappy  end  of  those  who  had  put  their  trust  in  other 
gods,  he  felt  it  incumbent  on  him  to  honor  his  father's 
God  alone." 

Accordingly  he  called  on  him  with  earnest  prayer  and  sup- 
plications that  he  would  reveal  to  him  who  he  was,  and  stretch 
forth  his  right  hand  to  help  him  in  his  present  difficulties. 
And  while  he  was  thus  praying  with  fervent  entreaty,  a  most 
marvelous  sign  appeared  to  him  from  heaven,  the  account  of 
which  it  might  have  been  hard  to  believe  had  it  been  related 
by  any  other  person.  But  since  the  victorious  emperor  himself 
long  afterwards  declared  it  to  the  writer  of  this  history,  when 
he  was  honored  with  his  acquaintance  and  society,  and  con- 
firmed his   statement  by  an   oath,   who  could  hesitate  to 


127]  EARLY  LEGENDS  1 37 

accredit  the  relation,  especially  since  the  testimony  of  after- 
time  has  established  its  truth  ?  He  said  that  about  noon,  when 
the  day  was  already  beginning  to  decline,  he  saw  with  his  own 
eyes  the  trophy  of  a  cross  of  light  in  the  heavens,  above  the 
sun,  and  bearing  the  inscription,  "  Conquer  by  this."  At  this 
sight  he  himself  was  struck  with  amazement,  and  his  whole 
army  also,  which  followed  him  on  this  expedition  and  wit- 
nessed the  miracle. 

He  said,  moreover,  that  he  doubted  within  himself  what  the 
import  of  this  apparition  could  be.  And  while  he  continued  to 
ponder  and  reason  on  its  meaning,  night  suddenly  came  on; 
then  in  his  sleep  the  Christ  of  God  appeared  to  him  with  the 
same  sign  which  he  had  seen  in  the  heavens  and  commanded 
him  to  make  a  likeness  of  that  sign  which  he  had  seen  in  the 
heavens,  and  to  use  it  as  a  safeguard  in  all  engagements  with 
his  enemies. 

At  dawn  of  day  he  arose,  and  communicated  the  marvel  to 
his  friends :  and  then,  calling  together  the  workers  in  gold  and 
precious  stones,  he  sat  in  the  midst  of  them  and  described  to 
them  the  figure  of  the  sign  he  had  seen,  bidding  them  repre- 
sent it  in  gold  and  precious  stones.  And  this  representation  I 
myself  have  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing.  .  .  .  But  at  the 
time  above  specified,  being  struck  with  amazement  at  the  ex- 
traordinary vision  and  resolving  to  worship  no  other  God  save 
him  who  had  appeared  to  him,  he  sent  for  those  who  were 
acquainted  with  the  mysteries  of  His  doctrine,  and  enquired 
who  that  God  was,  and  what  was  intended  by  the  sign  of  the 
vision  he  had  seen. 

They  affirmed  that  He  was  God,  the  only-begotten  Son  of 
the  one  and  only  God:  that  the  sign  which  had  appeared  was 
the  symbol  of  immortality,  and  the  trophy  of  that  victory  over 
death  which  he  had  gained  in  time  past  when  sojourning  on 
earth.   .   .  . 

He  determined  thenceforth  to  devote  himself  to  the  read- 
ing of  the  Inspired  writings. 

Moreover,  he  made  the  priests  of  God  his  counselors,  and 


138  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [138 

deemed  it  incumbent  on  him  to  honor  God  who  had  ap- 
peared to  him  with  all  devotion.^ 

That  the  miraculous  mid-day  vision  of  the  monogram  of 
Christ  in  the  heaven  is  legend  and  not  fact,  admits  of  little 
doubt.  ^  Eusebius,  himself,  in  his  Church  History,  written 
much  nearer  the  time  of  the  campaign  against  Maxentius, 
makes  no  mention  of  it,  or  indeed  of  any  conversion  "  of 
Constantine  to  Christianity.  We  have  considerable  con- 
temporary material  upon  the  campaign,  and  this  episode 
finds  no  place  in  it.  Lactantius  seems  altogether  our  best 
witness.  His  account  is  simple  and  straightforward.  He 
tells  that  Constantine  was  directed  in  a  dream  to  cause  the 
heavenly  sign  to  be  put  on  the  shields  of  his  soldiers,  that 
he  did  so,  and  won  the  battle.  ^  There  is  here  no  reference 
to  a  supernatural  vision  at  mid-day,  nor  to  Constantine's 
being  converted  to  Christianity. 

There  is  ample  evidence  of  Constantine's  use  of  the 
monogram  of  Christ,  but  aside  from  the  passage  just  quoted 
from  Eusebius  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  originated  from 
a  miraculous  vision.  The  repetition  of  the  story  by  his 
continuators  adds  no  weight  to  his  narrative.  Monumental 
references,  sculpture  and  inscriptions,  from  the  time  of 
Constantine,  have  been  found  in  many  places  setting  forth 
his  triumph.*  These  give  no  portrayal  of  a  heavenly  vision. 
The  wellnigh  universal  attitude  of  contemporary  Christians 
was  that  God  had  given  Constantine  the  victory,  and  that 

1  Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  26-32,  Eng.  trans,  in  N.  and  P.  N. 
F.,  Eusebius,  pp.  488-491. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  77  et  seq. 

^  De  mortibus  persecutorum,  44. 

*  For  a  practically  complete  list  and  short  descriptions  of  these,  cf. 
E.  Becker,  "  Protest  gegen  den  Kaiserkult  und  Verherrlichung  des 
Sieges  am  Pons  Milvius  in  der  altchristlichen  Kunst  der  konstantin- 
ischen  Zeit,"  in  Konstantin  der  Crosse  u.  s.  Zeit,  ed.  Dolger. 


ioq]  early  legends  139 

his  enemies  had  perished  in  the  Tiber,  precisely  as  God  had 
given  Moses  the  victory  by  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh's 
host  in  the  Red  Sea.  All  contemporary  comparisons  of 
Constantine  to  scriptural  heroes  liken  him  to  Moses.  Had 
there  been  any  heavenly  vision,  it  is  inconceivable  that 
there  should  be  no  reference  to  it  other  than  Eusebius', 
and  it  is  inconceivable  also  that  no  one  should  have 
thought  of  comparing  Constantine's  vision  with  that 
of  the  Apostle  Paul.  How  natural  this  would  have  been 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Theodoret  in  his  continu- 
ation of  Eusebius  summarizes  in  that  comparison  his  pre- 
decessor's account,  speaking  of  Constantine  as  "  a  prince 
deserving  of  the  highest  praise,  who  like  the  divine  apostle, 
was  not  called  by  man  or  through  man,  but  by  God."  ^ 

Eusebius  tells  his  story  under  circumstances  which  make 
its  truthfulness  highly  improbable,  even  were  it  not  con- 
tradicted by  other  evidence.  He  tells  it  as  a  piece  of  news 
at  least  twenty-four  years  after  the  event.  He  writes  about 
a  wonder  which  occurred  in  the  other  half  of  the  Roman 
Empire  and  which  left  no  impression  in  that  part  of  the 
Empire.  Pie  anticipates  his  reader's  incredulity  by  admit- 
ting his  own,  and  asserting  that  the  emperor  told  him  the 
story  "  long  afterwards  "  in  conversation  and  confirmed  it 
with  an  oath.  He  was  not  himself  intimate  with  the  em- 
peror and  saw  him  only  on  rare  occasions ;  it  was  there- 
fore improbable  that  he  possessed  genuine  inside  informa- 
tion of  the  emperor's  early  career.^  He  has  nothing  to  say 
of  the  cross  in  the  heavens  in  his  Oration  in  Praise  of  Con- 
stantine delivered  in  the  presence  of  his  hero  and  full  of 
allusions  to  the  revelations  with  which  God  had  favored 
him,  but  describes  it  only  after  the  emperor's  death.^    It  is 

^  i,  2.  For  comparison  of  Constantine  to  Moses,  cf.  Eusebius,  Church 
History,  ix,  9;  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  12,  20,  38. 

2  Cf.  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  33,  39. 

3  The  allusion  in  chap.  6,  21,  would  apply  to  a  dream  as  well  as,  or 
better  than,  to  a  heavenly  apparition. 


140  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [140 

possible  that  Constantine,  never  averse  to  enhancing  the 
esteem  in  which  churchmen,  and  others  for  that  matter, 
held  him,  in  conversation  with  Eusebius  late  in  his  life  may- 
have  embellished  the  facts  relating  to  his  adoption  of  the 
heavenly  sign  and  may  even  have  given  the  bishop  hints 
from  which  his  later  narration  developed/  Indeed,  Con- 
stantine's  own  later  memories  of  the  campaign  may  have 
developed  by  some  process  of  auto-suggestion  into  some- 
thing like  a  germ  of  Eusebius'  story. 

The  legend  thus  given  birth  was  embodied,  usually  with 
a  few  additions  or  modifications,  in  all  of  Eusebius'  con- 
tinuators.^  Philostorgius  makes  the  vision  a  greater  celes- 
tial display  than  did  his  predecessors.  "  As  to  the  cause  of  the 
conversion  of  Constantine  from  heathen  superstition  to  the 
Christian  faith,  Philostorgius,  in  conformity  with  all  other 
writers,  ascribes  it  to  his  victory  over  Maxentius,  in  a  battle 
in  which  the  sign  of  the  cross  was  seen  in  the  East,  vast  in 
extent  and  lit  up  with  glorious  light,  and  surrounded  on 
each  side  by  stars  like  a  rainbow,  symbolizing  the  form  of 
letters.  The  letters,  too,  were  in  the  Latin  tongue  and 
formed  these  words,  '  In  hoc  signo  vinces  '."  ^  The  soldiers 
are  in  most  accounts  represented  as  witnessing  the  phe- 
nomenon, and  a  document  is  in  existence  purporting  to  give 
the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness  in  the  army,  St.  Artemius, 
afterwards  a  martyr.^  The  Vita  S.  Artemii,  however,  is 
a  crude  document  from  a  later  date  and  entitled  to  no  cre- 
dence in  this  connection. 

In  the  West,  where  the  occurrence  is  represented  as  hav- 
ing taken  place,  it  seems  to  have  been  known  to  few,  if  any, 
writers.     Gibbon  remarked  that     the  advocates  for  the 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  106. 

2  Sozomen,  i,  3-4;  Socrates,  i,  2;  Theodoret,  who  begins  with  the 
Arian  controversy,  refers  to  it  in  i,  2 ;  Philostorgius,  i,  6. 

^  i,  6,  as  preserved  by  Photius. 

*  October  (8th)  20th  in  Acta  Sanctorum. 


j^l]  EARLY  LEGENDS  141 

vision  are  unable  to  produce  a  single  testimony  from  the 
Fathers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  who,  in  their  vol- 
uminous v/ritings,  repeatedly  celebrate  the  triumph  of  the 
church  and  of  Constantine."  ^  This  is  certainly  true  so  far 
as  Western  writers  are  concerned.  Jerome  makes  no  men- 
tion of  it  whatever,  nor  does  Augustine,  though  both  writers 
had  ample  occasion  to  do  so. 

Another,  and  quite  contradictory  legend  of  Constantine's 
conversion,  through  the  agency  of  Bishop  Sylvester  (314- 
336),  gained  credence  some  generations  later,  and  this  Euse- 
bian  legend  remained  quite  in  the  background  until  its  com- 
petitor was  thoroughly  discredited  at  the  beginning  of  mod- 
ern times.  It  then  became  a  favorite  theme  of  ecclesiastical 
writers  and  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries 
became  a  common  subject  of  discussion  in  doctoral  disser- 
tations and  elsewhere.  In  modern  times  it  has  unquestion- 
ably been  the  most  popular  of  all  Constantinian  legends. 

It  has  this  in  common  with  the  hostile,  pagan  legend  of 
Constantine's  career,  previously  described,  that  it  assumes 
a  sudden  and  radical  conversion  of  the  emperor  to  Chris- 
tianity. We  have  already  seen  that  such  a  violent  break 
with  paganism,  and  such  an  instantaneous  and  complete  ac- 
ceptance of  Christianity  is  not  indicated  by  the  historical 
evidence.  Zosimus,  the  pagan,  and  Eusebius,  the  Chris- 
tian (in  his  Life  of  Constantine),  exaggerated  and  intensi- 
fied the  process  of  conversion,  the  former  to  the  discredit, 
the  latter  to  the  glory  of  the  champion  of  the  Supreme 
God. 

3.  Legends  of  Saintliness 

Irrespective  of  the  manner  of  his  conversion,  Constan- 
tine's  support,  and  final  adoption,  of  Christianity  became, 
for  all  writers  belonging  to  that  faith,  the  central  fact  of 

^  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ed.  Bury,  vol.  ii,  p.  305,  n. 
52. 


142  CONSTANTJNE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [142 

his  reign,  the  fact  that  colored  all  his  acts  and  determined 
his  personal  character.  Thus  arose  the  legend  which  pic- 
tured him  as  a  man  of  extraordinary  piety,  of  saintly  life, 
and  of  constant  communion  with  God.  Eusebius  repre- 
sents him  as  rebuking  a  panegyrist  for  prophesying  that  he, 
the  emperor,  was  destined  to  share  the  empire  of  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  world  to  come.^  It  was,  however,  only  such 
bold  flights  of  fancy  as  this,  from  the  lips  of  awkward 
orators,  that  drew  the  imperial  rebuke.  Eusebius  himself 
is  not  much  more  restrained  in  the  praise  of  his  ruler's 
character  and  of  his  favor  with  God.  We  have  already 
seen  how  one-sided  and  fulsome  with  praise  of  the  em- 
peror's piety  are  both  his  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine 
and  his  Life  of  Constantine.  In  both,  the  emperor  was  de- 
scribed as  without  faults  or  vices,  living  a  life  wholly  de- 
voted to  the  service  of  God.  His  palace,  in  vvhich  dark 
intrigues  took  place  which  led,  justly  or  unjustly,  to  the 
execution  of  his  son  and  his  wife,  was  described  as  modeled 
into  a  church  of  God.  ^  Though  there  are  strong  reasons 
for  thinking  that  during  most  of  his  reign  he  maintained 
irregular  connection  with  women  which,  if  not  frowned 
upon  by  contemporary  society,  was  contrary  to  all  the  teach- 
ings of  Christianity,  he  was  spoken  of  as  superior  to  sexual 
desire.^  He  was,  in  short,  one  "  whose  character  is  formed 
after  the  divine  original  of  the  Supreme  Sovereign,  and 
whose  mind  reflects,  as  in  a  mirror,  the  radiance  of  his  vir- 
tues." * 

Constantine  is  said  to  have  built  a  church  of  the  apostles 
in  Constantinople  as  his  own  sepulchre,  "  anticipating  with 
extraordinary  fervor  of  faith  that  his  body  would  share 

^  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  48. 
'  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  17. 

3  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine,  v,  4.    Cf.  supra,  p.  go  et  seq, 
*  Ibid.    Cf.  also,  Life  of  Constantine,  i,  3. 


143]  EARLY  LEGENDS  I43 

their  title  with  the  apostles  themselves,  and  that  he  should 
thus  even  after  death  become  the  subject,  with  them,  of  the 
devotions  which  should  be  performed  to  their  honor  in  this 
place.  He  accordingly  caused  twelve  coffins  to  be  set  up 
in  this  church,  like  sacred  pillars  in  honor  and  memory  of 
the  apostolic  number,  in  the  center  of  which  his  own  was 
placed.  .  .  ^  If  his  motive  in  this  be  correctly  repre- 
sented, it  confirms  other  facts  which  indicate  that  he  appre- 
ciated to  the  full  the  character  which  others  gave  him  for 
piety,  and  even  exerted  himself  to  heighten  his  reputation 
in  this  respect. 

The  legend  of  Constantine's  extraordinary  Christian  vir- 
tues was  accepted  in  full  by  the  continuators  of  the  Church 
History  of  his  first  biographer;  Sozomen,  Socrates,  Theo- 
doret,  Philostorgius,  Evagrius,  and,  with  reservations,  in 
the  West,  by  Jerome.  The  former  add  very  little  to  our 
historical  knowledge  of  Constantine,  but  they  continued  and 
amplified  the  legend  of  the  emperor  as  an  ideal  Christian 
saint.  In  the  East,  especially,  where  men  knew  best  the 
last  phase  of  his  life,  323-337,  when  he  was  more  closely 
and  publicly  allied  with  the  church  than  he  had  been  before 
that,  and  where  the  fierceness  of  the  Diocletian  persecution 
made  his  reign  most  grateful,  imagination  glorified  his 
memory.  He  came  finally  to  be  regarded  as  a  saint  in  the 
Eastern  Church  with  a  festal  day  observed  annually  with 
great  ceremony,  at  Constantinople,  the  city  which  he  had 
founded.^  He  was  called  Isapostolos,  "  equal  with  the 
apostles,"  and  according  to  Anna  Comnena  was  counted 
among  the  apostles.^    Long  before  this,  Theodoret  had 

^  Life  of  Constantine,  iv,  60.    Told  also  by  subsequent  writers,  some 
of  whom  were  familiar  with  the  churches  of  Constantinople. 
'  Cf.  Acta  Sanctorum,  on  May  21,  pp.  13,  14.    The  Chronicon  Alex- 
andrium  tells  of  the  ceremony. 

'Alexias,  14,  8. 


144 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[144 


made  the  comparison  by  describing  him  as  "  a  prince  de- 
serving of  the  highest  praise,  who,  Hke  the  divine  apostle, 
was  not  called  by  man  or  through  man,  but  by  God."  ^ 

In  the  West  Constantine  did  not  quite  attain  such  high 
rank,  but  he  was  nevertheless  held  in  high  repute  as  a 
notable  Christian  and  classed  as  a  saint.  An  equestrian 
statue  adorning  the  facades  of  some  churches  in  parts  of 
France  has  been  held  by  many  archaeologists  to  represent 
the  first  Christian  emperor.^  His  writings  have  frequently 
been  classed  with  those  of  the  Latin  fathers  of  the  church.'^ 

The  significance  of  this  legendary  growth  is  twofold.  In 
the  first  place  it  plainly  served  as  a  sedative  for  uneasiness 
over  the  entrance  of  such  a  potent  personage  as  the  emperor 
into  the  affairs  of  the  church.  Over  against  the  pagan 
world  there  could  be  only  jubilation  over  the  possession  of 
such  a  powerful  patron.  Over  against  objectionable  Chris- 
tians, too,  the  Catholic  clergy  were  glad  to  have  the  lever- 
age of  imperial  favor,  and  the  disposal  of  public  funds  to 
the  exclusion  of  schismatics.  But  in  the  theological  con- 
troversies of  the  early  third  century  even  the  Catholic 
church  and  clergy  suffered  from  the  access  to  the  emperors 
ear  enjoyed  by  their  enemies;  thence  the  consciousness,  not 
often  expressed,  that  there  were  disadvantages  attached  to 
an  imperial  protector.  There  are  two  remarkable  passages 
in  Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine  which  seem  strangely  out 
of  place  in  the  midst  of  his  extravagant  eulogy.  In  the 
first  *  he  merely  says  that  owing  to  the  emperor's  good 
nature  and  lack  of  discrimination  offenses  went  unpunished, 

*  Churrh  History,  i,  2. 

'  See  Richardson's  bibliography  on  Constantine  in  Nicene  and  Post 
Nuene  Fathers,  Second  Series,  Eusebius,  vol.  i,  p.  456  ff.,  under 
Arbellot,  Audiat,  Berthele  and  Musset. 

'  So  Migne,  who  gives  them  in  his  P.  L.,  vol.  viii. 

*  iv,  31. 


145] 


EARLY  LEGENDS 


145 


and  this  state  of  things  drew  with  it  no  small  blame  on 
the  general  administration  of  the  empire;  whether  justly 
or  not,  let  everyone  form  his  own  judgment;  for  myself 
I  only  ask  permission  to  record  the  fact."  In  the  second, 
he  breaks  through  his  self-imposed  reserve,^  and  writes 
bitterly,  In  truth  I  can  myself  bear  testimony  to  the  griev- 
ous evils  which  prevailed  during  these  times;  I  mean  the 
violence  of  rapacious  and  unprincipled  men,  who  preyed  on 
all  classes  of  society  alike,  and  the  scandalous  hypocrisy  of 
those  who  crept  into  the  Church,  and  assumed  the  name  and 
character  of  Christians.  His  own  benevolence  and  good- 
ness of  heart,  the  genuineness  of  his  own  faith,  and  his 
truthfulness  of  character,  induced  the  emperor  to  credit 
the  profession  of  these  reputed  Christians,  who  craftily  pre- 
served the  semblance  of  sincere  affection  for  his  person. 
The  confidence  he  reposed  in  such  men  sometimes  forced 
him  into  conduct  unworthy  of  himself,  of  which  envy  took 
advantage  to  cloud  in  this  respect  the  luster  of  his  character. 
These  offenders,  however,  were  soon  overtaken  by  divine 
chastisement."  ^  The  only  consolation  for  the  evils  of  im- 
perial control  lay  in  the  thought  of  the  Christian  disposi- 
tion of  the  ruler,  and  in  the  hope  of  divine  chastisement  of 
evil  advisers.  Theodoret,  a  staunch  Athanasian,  also  felt 
called  upon  to  explain  how  Constantine  had  been  deceived 
by  malicious  and  designing  bishops  and  had  "  sent  so  many 
great  men  into  exile."  ^  He  compared  him  to  David,  re- 
ceived by  Ziba,  and  ends  with  the  sigh  "  However,  the  em- 
peror w-as  translated  from  his  earthly  dominion  to  a  better 
kingdom." 

'  iv,  54-55. 

^  This,  it  seems  to  me,  refers  to  episodes  in  the  church  such  as  the 
case  of  Eustathius  at  Antioch,  or  some  phase  of  the  Arian  controversy, 
rather  than  to  any  graft  in  civil  affairs,  v^^ith  which  Eusebius  does  not 
concern  himself  at  all  in  the  Life  of  Constantine. 

'  i.  33- 


146  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [146 

In  the  second  place  the  glorification  of  Constantine  as  an 
ideal  Christian  witnesses  the  acceptance  by  the  church  of 
the  transformation  which,  beginning  earlier  and  continu- 
ing later,  proceeded  most  rapidly  in  this  generation.  I  refer 
to  the  transformation  of  the  church  into  a  rigidly  organized, 
dogmatically  defined  organization  linked  to  the  state.  Con- 
stantine as  emperor  was  a  powerful  factor  in  this  process. 
He  and  his  successors,  as  emperors  and  under  the  aegis  of 
his  legendary  sainthood,  occupied  a  place  in  the  church  to 
which  as  mere  individuals  they  were  not  entitled.  Constan- 
tine, it  will  be  remembered,  was  not  baptized  and  did  not 
even  become  a  catechumen,  until  his  last  illness  overtook 
him.  Yet  he  sat  with  bishops  in  council,  and  directed 
the  church  in  important  matters.  In  this  the  church  made 
a  sacrifice  of  its  independence  from  which,  in  the  East, 
especially,  it  never  recovered.  There  the  emperor  retamed 
a  place  in  the  church  corresponding  somewhat  with  that 
which  he  had  held  in  paganism  as  pontifex  maxirniis.  Ac- 
cording to  the  story  which  Theodoret  relates  of  the  disci- 
pline imposed  by  Ambrose  upon  Theodosius  the  Great  for 
the  massacre  at  Thessalonica,  it  had  been  the  custom  at 
Constantinople  before  that  episode  for  the  emperor  to  re- 
main with  the  priests  inside  the  altar-rail  after  presenting 
his  gift  at  the  communion  table.  It  reinained  for  Ambrose 
to  teach  him  the  distinction  made  between  clergy  and  laHy 
in  the  West:  "  The  priests  alone,  O  emperor,  are  permitted 
to  enter  within  the  railing  of  the  altar,  others  must  not  ap- 
proach it.  Retire  then,  and  remain  with  the  rest  of  the 
laity.  A  purple  robe  makes  emperors,  but  not  priests."  ^ 
It  is  well  known  that  the  church  as  a  whole  rose  to  Am- 
brose's position  and  in  the  Middle  Ages  no  longer  stood  in 
awe  of  emperors,  and. that  the  papacy  rather  delighted  to 


^  Theodoret,  v,  18. 


I^^]  EARLY  LEGENDS  I47 

teach  them  humihty,  but  the  joy  of  imperial  recognition 
was  probably  too  fresh  and  too  great  in  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine  for  church  officials  to  fully  appreciate  the  distinc- 
tion between  temporal  and  spiritual  power.  Instead,  it  for- 
got the  darker  side  of  the  emperor's  life;  it  extolled  his 
piety  and  his  favor  with  God  and  elaborated  these  themes 
in  eulogy  and  in  legend. 

4.  Legends  of  Church  Building 
One  token  of  Constantine's  devotion  to  the  church  was 
especially  magnified  by  tradition.  In  another  connection  a 
list  has  been  given  of  the  church  buildings  whose  erection 
may  with  some  assurance  be  assigned  to  Constantine  or  his 
family.^  With  the  facts  of  Constantine's  munificence  in 
church  building,  and  the  fact  of  his  being  the  first  Christian 
emperor,  as  a  suggestion  to  the  imagination  of  subsequent 
generations,  legends  of  buildings  erected  by  him  sprang 
up  on  every  hand.  Local  pride  attributed  edifices  by  the 
hundred  to  him,  with  which  he  had  no  connection  what- 
ever.^ 

When  buildings  actually  erected  by  him,  or  those  con- 
nected with  him,  were  either  destroyed  or  rebuilt,  as  all  of 
them  sooner  or  later  were  with  the  exception  of  the  Senate's 
triumphal  arch  to  him,  the  unmarked  site  or  the  later 
structure  was  still  permanently  connected  with  him. 

The  Liher  Pontificalis  gives  under  the  life  of  Sylvester 
an  illustration  of  the  legendary  process.  Here  an  enormous 
list  is  given  of  Constantine's  benefactions  to  the  various 
Roman  churches.  But  almost  no  benefactions  by  emper- 
ors, or  others,  of  later  generations  are  reported  under  the 
lives  of  subsequent  popes.  A  study  of  the  list,  and  com- 
parison with  other  parts  of  the  Liher  Pontificalis  shows  that 

1  Cf.  supra,  pp.  57-61. 

'  Cf.  Lethaby  in  Cambridge  Medieval  History,  i,  pp.  609-611. 


148 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[148 


the  author  or  authors  conveniently  bunched  documentary 
and  other  information  about  subsequent  donations  under  the 
name  of  the  first  Christian  emperor  and  his  assumed  spir- 
itual father.  These  were  glorified  at  the  expense  of  the 
fame  of  those  who  came  after  them.  Undoubtedly  the 
same  process  took  place  with  reference  to  many  buildings.^ 

5.  Legends  of  the  Founding  of  Constantinople  ^ 
A  most  curious  illustration  of  the  work  of  the  legend- 
building  imagination  is  afforded  by  the  fanciful  way  in 
which  the  story  of  Constantine's  piety  became  interwoven 
with  almost  every  great  deed  of  his.  Among  the  many 
successes  of  Constantine  one  of  the  most  notable  was  the 
new  city  which  he  built  on  the  site  of  the  ancient  Byzan- 
tium. With  characteristic  ambition  and  energy  he  made  it 
a  monument  such  as  no  other  Roman  emperor  ever  left.  A 
memorial  of  his  victory  over  Licinius,  on  the  edge  of  the 
recruiting  fields  of  the  hardiest  soldiers  of  the  Roman  army, 
Thrace,  Macedonia,  Illyrica  and  Dalmatia,  the  location  was 
so  admirable  that  this  new  Rome,  as  the  Emperor  named 
it,^  became  the  greatest  city  of  the  empire  and  the  last  sur- 
viving seat  of  its  power.  It  was  called  Constantinople 
within  the  lifetime  of  its  founder.* 

^  Gregorovius,  City  of  Rome,  i,  p.  40  n.;  ii,  p.  161. 

Curious  mistakes  of  identity  were  also  made;  the  equestrian  statue 
of  Marcus  Aurelius  at  Rome  was  called  Constantine  the  Great  through- 
out the  Middle  Ages. 

^  J.  Maurice,  Les  Origines  de  Constantinople.  Memoires  du  centen- 
aire  des  antiqiiaires  de  France  (1904),  pp.  284  et  seq.,  is  one  of  the 
best  recent  works  on  the  historical  facts  involved. 

3  Augustine,  City  of  God,  v,  25 ;  Sozomen,  ii,  2-3 ;  cf.  Ducange,  Con- 
stantinopolis  Christiana,  i,  6. 

^  Panegyr.  Optatiamis  Porphyrins,  4,  6;  18,  33 ;  Eusebius,  Life  of 
Constantine,  iv,  58;  Eutropius,  x,  8;  Julian,  Orations,  i,  p.  8;  Bordeaux 
Pilgrim,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  col.  783  et  seq.,  cf.  Ducange,  op.  cit.,  i, 
5.  This  name  was  doubtless  used  with  the  emperor's  approval,  and  per- 
haps by  his  order,  cf.  Sozomen,  loc.  cit.,  Socrates,  i,  16. 


149] 


EARLY  LEGENDS 


149 


Aside  from  legends  exaggerating  the  magnificence  of  the 
new  city  and  the  desolation  of  Rome,  stript  to  people  and 
adorn  it/  stories  of  providential  omens  developed  about  it. 
A  law  of  Constantine's  granting  special  favors  to  Constan- 
tinople declares  the  divine  origin  of  its  name.^  The  site 
also,  was  later  said  to  have  been  indicated  to  the  emperor  by 
God.  Sozomen  tells  how  Constantino,  resolved  upon  found- 
ing a  city  which  should  be  called  by  his  own  name, 

repaired  to  a  plain  at  the  foot  of  Troy,  near  the  Hellespont, 
above  the  tomb  of  Ajax,  where,  it  is  said,  the  Achaians  in- 
trenched themselves  when  besieging  Troy ;  and  here  he  laid  the 
plan  of  a  large  and  beautiful  city,  and  built  the  gates  on  an 
elevated  spot  of  ground,  whence  they  are  still  visible  from  the 
sea  to  mariners.  But  when  he  had  advanced  thus  far,  God 
appeared  to  him  by  night,  and  commanded  him  to  seek  an- 
other site  for  his  city.  Led  by  the  hand  of  God,  he  arrived  at 
Byzantium  in  Thrace,  beyond  Chalcedon  in  Bithynia,  and  here 
he  was  desired  to  build  his  city,  and  to  render  it  worthy  of  the 
name  of  Constantine.  In  obedience  to  the  command  of  God, 
he  therefore  enlarged  the  city,  etc.^ 

1  Cf.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  etc.,  ed.  Bury,  ii,  p.  151  et  seq.,  and 
references  given  there. 

^  "  Pro  commoditate  urbis,  quam  aeterno  nomine  jubente  deo  dona- 
vimus,  haec  vobis  privilegea  credidimus  deferenda,"  etc.  Cod.  Theod., 
xiii,  5,  7,  Dec.  i,  334- 

'  ii,  3.  Seeck  accepts  this  as  historical,  and  calls  the  night  revelation 
a  dream.  He  holds  it  to  be  confirmed  by  Cod.  Theod.,  xiii,  5,  7,  "  pro 
commoditate  urbis,  quam  aeterno  nomine  jubente  deo  donavimus,"  but 
it  will  be  noticed  that  this  claims  divine  sanction  for  the  name,  not  the 
site,  of  the  city.  I  am  inclined  to  look  upon  the  whole  story  as  an  in- 
stance of  the  prevalent  tendency  to  assume  supernatural  guidance  for 
an  accomplished  fact.  It  is  of  a  piece  with  Sozomen's  explanation  of 
the  continued  prosperity  of  the  city  begun;  "by  the  assistance  of  God, 
it  became  the  most  populous  and  wealthy  of  cities.  I  know  of  no  cause 
to  account  for  this  extraordinary  aggrandizement,  unless  it  be  the  piety 
of  the  builder  and  of  the  inhabitants,  and  their  compassion  and  liber- 
ality toward  the  poor."    This  of  Constantinople! 

Burckhardt,  on  the  other  hand,  cites  vague  reports  that  Constantine 


150  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [ic^q 

The  story  of  divine  guidance  extended  to  the  details  of  the 
laying  out  the  city.  Philostorgius  ^  says  "that  when  he  went 
to  mark  the  circuit  of  the  city,  he  walked  around  it  with  a 
spear  in  his  hand;  and  when  his  attendants  thought  he  was 
measuring  out  too  large  a  space,  one  of  them  came  up  to 
him  and  asked  him,  '  How  far,  O  prince  ?  '  The  emperor 
answered,  '  Until  he  who  goes  before  me  comes  to  a  stop  ' ; 
by  this  answer  clearly  manifesting  that  some  heavenly 
power  was  leading  him  on,  and  teaching  him  what  to  do." 

Long  afterwards,  in  the  West,  the  heavenly  guidance 
was  represented  as  coming  in  a  very  different  and  more 
romantic  way.  Bishop  Aldhelm  ^  recites  that  when  Con- 
stantine  was  in  Byzantium  once  on  a  time,  he  had  the  fol- 
lowing dream.  A  feeble  old  woman  appeared  to  him  in  his 
sleep,  and,  at  the  command  of  Sylvester,  bishop  of  Rome, 

thought  of  making  Sardica  (now  Sofia,  Bulgaria),  Thessalonica  and 
Chalcedon  his  new  capital.  (Zeit  Constantins,  p.  436.)  He  also,  in  his 
effort  to  show  that  Constantine  was  not  a  Christian,  argues  that  he 
allowed  the  establishment  of  pagan  cults  in  New  Rome,  and  that  the 
eternal  name  which  he  gave  the  city  was  that  of  Flora,  Anthusa,  or 
some  other  pagan  deity.  (Op.  cit.,  pp.  440,  441,  382  et  passim.)  This 
is  altogether  unhistorical. 

^  ii,  9. 

2  About  690  A.  D.,  in  the  Liber  de  Laudibus  Virginitatis,  in  his  Opera, 
ed.  Giles,  pp.  27  et  seq.,  151  et  seq.,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  Ixxix.  Friedrich, 
ConstantiniscJie  Schcnkung,  pp.  137-138,  thinks  the  narrative  is  an  inven- 
tion added  to  the  Vita  Silvestri  with  an  object,  namely,  to  exalt  Sylves- 
ter and  the  Roman  Church  of  which  he  was  bishop,  by  having  him  give 
directions  about  the  founding  of  Constantinople.  England  was  the 
great  ultramontane  center  of  that  time,  and  Friedrich's  theory  is  plaus- 
ible. Aldhelm  gives  it  as  one  of  a  series  of  stories  about  Sylvester,  evi- 
dently taken  from  a  copy  of  the  Vita.  It  is  said  to  be  in  some  MS. 
copies  of  this  work.  Nevertheless  one  is  not  certain  that  it  is  not 
merely  the  product  of  a  fanciful  imagination  inserted  in  the  Vita  Sil- 
vestri after  it  had  developed  in  England  or  elsewhere.  Constantine's 
connection  with  their  country  was  not  forgotten  by  medieval  English- 
men ;  they  made  a  national  hero  out  of  him,  and  his  legendary  memory 
blossomed  more  grotesquely  there  than  elsewhere.   Cf.  supra,  p.  120. 


I^l]  EARLY  LEGENDS  151 

he  engaged  in  prayer.  The  old  woman  changed  into  a  beau- 
tiful maiden.  Constantine  covered  her  with  his  mantle 
and  put  his  diadem  on  her  head.  His  mother  Helena  said 
to  him  She  will  belong  to  you  and  will  never  die."  When 
he  awoke  from  this  dream  Constantine  was  perplexed  and 
sought  its  solution  in  a  week's  fast.  Sylvester  then  ap- 
peared again  to  him  in  a  dream  and  told  him  that  the  old 
woman  was  the  city  of  Byzantium  in  which  he  then  was, 
old  and  almost  in  ruins.  But  Constantine  was  to  mount 
the  horse  on  which  at  Rome  in  his  baptismal  robes  he  had 
ridden  to  the  graves  of  the  Apostles,  and  take  the  labarum 
w^ith  the  sign  of  Christ  in  his  right  hand.  He  was  then  to 
let  the  horse  take  its  way  and  to  drag  the  shaft  of  the  spear 
along  the  ground  so  as  to  make  a  furrow.  Along  this  the 
walls  of  the  new  city  were  to  be  built,  which  was  to  bear 
his  name,  and  to  be  the  queen  of  all  cities.  Here  his  de- 
scendants would  reign  forever.  As  soon  as  Constantine 
awoke  he  went  to  work  as  directed.  This  version  of  the 
founding  of  Constantinople  is  repeated  with  variations  by 
William  of  Malmesbury,  by  Ralph  de  Diceto  and  others, 
and  passed  into  general  literature.^ 

1  Cf.  Richardson  in  Nicene  and  Post  Nicene  Fathers,  Eusebius,  p. 
443.  Legends  about  Constantine  and  the  founding  of  Constantinople 
abound  throughout  the  Balkan  Peninsula.  Cf.  Heydenreich,  "  Con- 
stantin  der  Grosse  in  den  Sagen  des  Mittelalters,"  Deutsch.  Zeitsch.  f. 
Geschichtewissenschaft,  ix  (1893).  Cf.  also,  art.  "Roumania"  (Liter- 
ature) in  Encyclopedia  Britannica. 


CHAPTER  V 


LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONSTANTINE's  CONVERSION  AND 
BAPTISM 

I.  Legends  of  Constantine's  Conversion  by  Helena;  of  his 
Baptism  by  Eiisebiiis  of  Rome 

The  early,  Eusebian  legend  of  Constantine's  conversion 
through  a  miraculous  vision,  as  we  have  seen,  long  had 
only  a  limited  scope.  Various  other  legends  sprang  up  in 
different  places.  One,  embodied  in  apocryphal  letters, 
ascribed  his  conversion  to  the  influence  of  his  mother, 
Helena,  thus  exactly  reversing  the  more  probable  account 
which  Eusebius  gives  of  the  religious  relationship  of  the 
two  persons.^  Theodoret  may  have  ascribed  to  her  a  part 
in  the  emperor's  spiritual  rebirth  in  a  reference  he  makes 
to  her  as  most  highly  blessed  in  her  maternal  capacity, 
having  been  the  means  of  producing  that  great  light  which 
she  still  nourished  by  religious  counsels."  ' 

In  the  main  version  of  the  legend  of  the  finding  of  the 
true  cross  in  the  reign  of  Constantine,  the  emperor  is  said 
to  have  been  instructed  in  the  Christian  faith  and  baptized 
by  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Rome  (309  or  310).^   In  the  earlier 

*  Life  of  Constantine,  iii,  47. 

'  i,  18.  Elsewhere,  however,  he  says  Constantine  "  like  the  divine 
apostle,  was  not  called  by  man,  nor  through  man,  but  by  God,"  i,  2. 
This  must  refer  to  his  miraculous  conversion.  It  is  possible  that  the 
allusion  in  i,  18,  is  merely  to  the  fact  that  Helena  gave  birth  to  Con- 
stantine. 

3  For  this  legend  cf.  supra,  pp.  116-119. 

152  [152 


153] 


LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION 


153 


and  more  fragmentary  allusions  to  the  finding  of  the  cross, 
such  as  those  of  Ambrose  and  Rufinus,  this  is  not  included, 
and  after  the  eleventh  century,  but  apparently  never  before 
then,  the  name  of  Sylvester  (314-336)  is  sometimes  substi- 
tuted for  that  of  his  predecessor  ^  the  change  being  evidently 
a  late  correction.  The  baptism  by  Eusebius  of  Rome  may 
have  been  invented  originally  as  an  orthodox  correction  for 
the  historical  baptism  by  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  the  Arian, 
made  easily  and  perhaps  ignorantly ;  and  furthered  perhaps 
by  the  fact  that  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  during  the  last 
four  years  of  his  life,  was  bishop  of  Constantinople,  the 
"  capital  "  of  the  East  as  Rome  was  the  capital  "  of  the 
West^  In  other  writings  which  refer  to-  Constantine's 
baptism, the  name  of  the  priest  who  administered  it  is  often 
omitted.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  name  is  not  given 
in  the  account  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.^  Some  subsequent 
writers,  either  through  ignorance,  or  from  theological  mo- 
tives, also  give  no  name.  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  bishop  of 
Caesarea  in  Palestine  (c.  475)  merely  affirms  that  Constan- 
tine  was  assuredly  baptized,  not  by  a  heretic,  but  by  an 
orthodox  priest.* 

2.  Earliest  Version  of  Constantine's  Leprosy 

When  pious  story  tellers  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries, 
who  knew  none  of  the  historical  facts  of  Constantine's  bap- 
tism, turned  their  attention  to  his  conversion  they  produced 

^  J.  B.  Aufhauser,  Konstantins  Kreusesvision,  p.  20,  in  Ausgew'dhlte 
Texte.  Cf.  also  the  Inventio  sanctae  criccis,  ed.  from  Cod.  Paris,  lat. 
2769  (6th  or  7th  cent.)  by  A.  Holder  (Leipsic,  1889),  p.  2. 

2  Dolger  developes  this  point  at  length  in  "Die  Taufe  Konstantins  u. 
i.,  Problems,"  in  Konstantin  d.  G.  u.  s.  Zeit.,  pp.  417-422. 

3  Cf.  supra,  p.  87  et  seq. 

*■  Preserved  in  Photius,  Bihliotheca  Cod.,  Ixxxix,  Migne,  P.  G.,  vol. 
103,  col.  293 ;  given  also  in  t)61ger,  op.  cit.,  p.  395,  n.  2. 


154  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [154 

most  extraordinary  narratives.  The  oldest  of  these  which 
has  been  preserved  is  contained  in  a  homily  upon  the  bap- 
tism of  Constantine  from  James  of  Sarug,  in  Mesopotamia 
(452-521  A.  D.),  a  monophysite  bishop  who  wrote  in 
Syriac/  This  is  his  version:  Constantine  from  birth  had 
a  leprosy  upon  his  forehead  and  lips,  which  no  physicians 
could  heal.  After  his  succession  to  the  throne  he  sent  for 
"  Chaldeans  "  from  Babylon.  These  advised  him  to  bathe 
in  the  blood  of  freshly-slain  infants.  The  infants  were 
collected,  but  the  chief  of  the  slaves  and  the  mothers  tried 
to  prevent  the  death  of  the  children.  The  chief  of  the 
slaves  urged  that  Constantine  would  be  cured  by  baptism, 
and  cited  him  an  instance  of  its  miraculous  effect.  Through 
the  appearance  of  an  angel  the  advice  of  the  slave  carried 
the  day.  He  ran  to  the  church  and  asked  the  bishop  to  pre- 
pare for  the  baptism  of  the  emperor.  The  bishop  called  his 
priests  and  they  met  the  emperor,  who  came  from  his  palace 
with  his  splendid  retinue.  The  bishop  first  annointed  Con- 
stantine with  oil,  that  he  might  be  cleansed,  and  that  the 
leprosy  might  not  defile  the  holy  water.  The  leprosy  fell 
from  him;  he  praised  God,  and  descended  with  the  priest 
into  the  water.  He  was  deterred  from  baptism,  however, 
by  a  flame  which  burned  above  the  water,  until  his  crown 
was  removed.  Then,  as  a  simple  believer,  he  was  baptized, 
and  afterwards  he  partook  of  the  eucharist 

It  is  improbable  that  James  of  Sarug  manufactured  the 
whole  of  his  interesting  narrative.  Judging  from  the  use  he 
makes  of  it  as  a  homily,  it  must  have  been  in  more  or  less 
general  circulation  in  his  part  of  the  world.  It  has  been 
shown  by  Duchesne  ^  that  such  a  version  of  Constantine's 

^  A.  L.  Frothingham,  Jr.,  L'omelia  di  Giacomo  di  Sarug  sul  hattesimo 
di  Costantino  imperator,  publicata,  tradotta  ed  annotato,  first  published 
in  Memorie  della  Accademia  dei  Lincei,  viii,  1882  (Rome,  1883).  Froth- 
ingham thinks  the  homily  was  pronounced  some  time  after  473. 

*  Liber  Pontiiicalis,  vol.  i,  p.  cxvii  et  seq. 


155] 


LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION 


baptism  could  scarcely  have  originated  in  Byzantine  or 
Egyptian  sources,  and  that  it  must  probably  have  developed 
in  the  region  of  Armenia  and  Syria. 

3.  Armenian  Version 

We  meet  this  legend,  later,  in  the  History  of  Armenia' 
which  bears  the  name  of  Moses  of  Chorene  (d.  489).  This 
work  is  in  reality  a  miscellany  from  various  sources,  and 
while  it  may  have  as  its  base  a  genuine  writing  of  Mosea 
of  Chorene,^  in  its  present  form  it  can  not  date  from  earlier 
than  the  seventh  or  eighth  century."  Its  story  of  Constan- 
tine's  conversion  runs  thus:  Constantine,  while  still  only  a 
Caesar,  turned  defeat  into  victory  by  putting  a  cross  upon 
his  banners  as  had  been  suggested  to  him  in  a  dream.  Later, 
however,  induced  by  his  wife,  Maximina,  daughter  of  Dio- 
cletian, he  persecuted  the  Christians  and  was  therefore 
smitten  with  leprosy.  Physicians  and  sorcerers,  even  one 
sent  by  Trdat,  king  of  Armenia,  did  him  no  good.  A  priest 
commanded  a  bath  in  infants'  blood,  but  at  the  last  moment 
Constantine  shrank  from  the  execution  of  the  children.  As  a 
reward  for  his  tenderheartedness,  he  was,  in  a  dream,  com- 
manded by  the  apostle  to  seek  healing  in  baptism  at  the 
hands  of  Sylvester,  bishop  of  Rome,  then  in  hiding  from 
persecution  at  Mt.  Soracte.    He  did  so,  and  received  in- 

^  So  F.  N.  Fink,  Die  Litteraturen  des  Ostens,  Band  vii,  Abt.  2,  p.  92. 
(Leipsic,  1907.) 

^  Cf.  A.  Carriere,  Nouvelles  sources  de  Moise  de  Khoren,  Vienne, 
1893;  Supplement,  Vienne,  1894;  A.  v.  Gutschmid,  Moses  von  Chorene, 
in  Kleine  Schriften,  iii;  Paul  Vetter,  in  Literarische  Rundschau,  1893, 
p.  264,  and  Theologische  Quartalschrift,  1894,  p.  49;  H.  Gelzer,  in 
Realencyclop'ddie  fur  prot.  Theologie ;  O.  Bardenhewer,  Patrologie 
(1910),  p.  514- 

Duchesne  and  others,  on  the  basis  of  the  older  studies  of  Armenian 
literature,  considered  the  version  which  Moses  of  Chorene  gave  as 
the  oldest  form  of  the  legend  of  Constantine's  baptism  by  Sylvester  at 
Rome,  and  dated  it  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  This  theory 
must  be  rejected  in  the  light  of  the  more  recent  works  referred  to. 


156  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [156 

struction  and  baptism,  became  sound,  and  continued  victor- 
ious over  his  enemies. 

This  version  of  the  legend  includes  various  points  incor- 
porated from  sources  outside  of  Armenia  and  Syria,  such 
as  the  adoption  of  the  cross  for  use  in  battle  owing  to  a 
vision  in  a  dream,  and  some  items  which  were  apparently 
present  only  in  versions  quite  a  little  later  than  the  time  of 
Moses  of  Chorene,  such  as  the  use  of  the  name  of  Sylvester, 
bishop  of  Rome.  But  while  it  shows  familiarity  with  the 
later  Sylvester  legend,  and  has  other  foreign  additions,  it 
may  well  represent  a  story  current  in  Armenia  long  before 
the  seventh  century,  current  possibly  in  the  days  of  the  real 
Moses  of  Chorene. 

There  were  also  antecedents  in  earlier  Syrian  and 
Armenian  stories  for  legends  of  royal  leprosy  and  its 
cure  by  conversion.^  The  legend  of  Abgar,  king  of 
Edessa,  cured  and  converted  by  Addai  (Thaddeus)  in 
the  time  of  the  apostles,  was  well  known  throughout  the 
east  before  the  fourth  century.  It  had  many  points  of 
resemblance  with  the  legends  of  Constantine's  conver- 
sion as  told  by  James  and  by  Moses  above,  and  as  ex- 
panded later,^  such  as  the  affliction  of  leprosy,  conversion 
accompanied  with  healing,  conversion  of  nobles  and  peo- 

^This  sort  of  story  is,  of  course,  confined  to  no  particular  country. 
Conversions  through  miraculous  cures  are  found  among  most  peoples  in 
all  ages.  One  of  the  most  remarkable  legendary  cases  is  that  of  the 
emperor  Tiberius  in  a  Latin  document,  dated  by  its  translators  in  the 
seventh  or  eighth  century,  which  combines  the  stories  of  St.  Veronica 
and  of  Nathan's  embassy.  Here  it  is  said,  "  Tiberius  was  ill,  and  full 
of  ulcers  and  fevers,  and  had  nine  kinds  of  leprosy."  Fortunately, 
when  "  he  adored  the  image  of  the  Lord,"  he  was  healed.  Cf.  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers,  vol.  viii  (New  York,  1903),  pp.  472-76.  Leprosy  was 
then,  even  more  than  now  more  common  in  the  East  than  in  the  West, 
but  too  much  stress  can  not  be  laid  on  this,  as  the  Scriptures  may  have 
suggested  the  type  of  disease  by  the  stories  of  Naaman  and  others. 

"^Cf.  infra,  p.  161  et  seq.. 


1^7]  LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION  157 

pie  following  that  of  the  king,  exhibition  of  a  p^'cture 
(in  the  case  of  Abgar,  the  picture  of  Jesus),  mention  of 
the  king's  mother,  hostility  toward  the  Jews,  and  the 
statement  of  the  king  that  no  one  would  be  compelled 
to  become  a  Christian.' 

In  Armenia,  the  reign  of  Trdat  (Tiridates),  a  con- 
temporary of  Constantine,  was  a  time  of  glorious  national 
revival.  The  Roman  government  then,  and  for  some 
time  after,  supported  the  Armenian  kingdom  against  the 
Persians,  and  the  country  had  a  breathing  spell  before 
its  final  political  dismemberment.  This  was  also  the 
time  of  Gregory  the  Illuminator,  the  national  saint,  to 
whom  was  assigned  credit  for  the  conversion,  first  of  the 
king  and  ultimately  of  the  people,  to  Christianity. 
Trdat  and  Gregory  probably  visited  Constantine  and 
made  an  alliance  with  him.^  Caesarea,  in  Palestine,  the 
seat  of  Eusebius  the  historian,  became  later  the  center  to 
which  "nascent  Armenian  Christianity"  was  bound  "in 
the  closest  ties  of  intimacy."  ^  It  was  only  natural  that 
the  rich  growth  of  legends  about  Trdat  and  Gregory 
should  include  Constantine  in  its  scope.  From  the 
Armenian  point  of  view  the  conversion  of  Constantine 
would  be  the  central  fact  in  his  career  and  in  the  history 
of  the  Roman  Empire  of  that  time.  One  of  the  legends 
about  the  Armenian  king  ran  to  the  effect  that  he  perse- 
cuted the  Christians,  was  transformed  into  a  mere  dumb 
animal,  and  was  restored  and  converted  by  Gregory. 

'  Cf.  Eusebius:  Church  History,  i,  13,  also  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  vol. 
vii,  p.  704.  The  full  legend  is  given  in  The  Doctrine  of  Addai," 
Syrian  text  and  English  translation  by  George  Phillips,  1896.  Phillips 
accepts  the  legend  as  having  an  historical  basis,  impossible  passages 
being  interpolations. 

'The  copy  of  the  treaty,  however,  printed  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  579 
— 582  is  spurious. 

^  Baynes,  in  Eng.  Hist.  Rev.,  xxv,  p.  626  et  seq. 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[158 


Other  portions  of  the  two  legends,  moreover,  show 
similarity.  It  is  therefore  plausible  that  Armenians  or 
neighboring  Syrians  of  the  fifth  century  should  have 
imagined  Constantine  to  have  been  healed  of  his  disease 
and  converted  by  the  bishop  of  his  capital  city/ 

4.  Connection  of  the  Legend  with  Ro77ie  and  Sylvester 

Among  the  differences  noted  between  the  legend  told 
by  James  of  Sarug  and  that  given  in  Moses  of  Chorene 
was  the  fact  that  the  former  left  all  the  actors,  with  the 
sole  exception  of  Constantine,  anonymous,  while  the 
latter  specifically  named  Sylvester,  bishop  of  Rome,  as 
the  one  who  instructed  and  baptized  the  emperor.  This, 
and  some  other  differences,  are  to  be  accounted  for,  I 
think,  by  the  process,  common  to  the  growth  of  most 
legends,  of  rounding  out  and  completing  legendary  de- 
tails as  the  story  goes  from  mouth  to  mouth.  The 
date  of  the  final  redaction  of  Moses  of  Chorene's  history 
makes  it  possible  that  the  particulars  referred  to  may 

^The  most  reliable  early  Armenian  historian  of  the  fourth  century  is 
now  held  to  be  Faustus  of  Byzantium.  (French  trans,  in  Langlois; 
Coll.  d.  hist.  Arm.,  i.  201-310.  German  trans,  by  H.  Gelzer).  He 
confirms  the  existence  of  close  relationshipbetween the  Roman  Em.pire 
and  Armenia.  For  discussion  of  Armenian  historians,  see  Gelzer: 
"Die  Anfange  der  Armenischen  Kirche,"  in  Berichte  u.  die  Verhand. 
d.  kon.  sdchsischen  Gesellschaft  d.  Wissenschaft,  Phil.  hist.  Klasse,  xlvii, 
{1895)  109-174.  Cf.  also  Bury  ed.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  etc.,  ii, 
PP-  .'563-565;  and  Baynes,  "  Rome  and  Armenia  in  the  Fourth  Cen- 
tury," Eng.  Hist.  Rev.,  xxv  (1910),  pp.  625-643. 

Duchesne  contended  strongly  for  the  Armenian  or  Syrian  source  of 
the  legend,  and  though  at  points  his  arguments  are  not  now  conclusive, 
I  believe  that  his  main  proposition,  while  by  no  means  absolutely 
proven,  is  the  best  solution  of  the  question. 

Dolger,  in  Constantin  d.  Grosse  u.  s.  Zeit,  pp.  406-407,  et  passim, 
is  unwilling  to  accept  this  theory  as  proven,  and  attempts  to  prove  the 
Roman  origin  of  at  least  many  of  the  elements  of  the  story.  Cf.  inffa, 
p.  159. 


ic^g-j  LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION  j^g 

have  been  incorporated  in  it  from  some  copy  of  the 
Vt^a  Silvestri  described  below.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is  entirely  possible  that  these  statements  originated  in 
Armenia  or  Syria  and  that  Moses  of  Chorene  represents 
the  line  by  which  they  entered  into  the  Vita  Silvestri. 
In  either  case  the  process  was  probably  essentially  the 
same.  But  why  was  the  baptism  located  at  Rome,  and 
the  priest  who  administered  it  identified  with  Sylvester? 

One  answer  to  this  question  attributes  the  develop- 
ment, if  not  the  origin  of  the  legend  itself,  to  Rome. 
Dolger  thinks  that  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  who  really 
baptized  the  emperor,  becoming  later  bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople, was  vaguely  spoken  of  as  performing  the 
rite  at  New  Rome,  or  the  capital  city.  In  the  West, 
this  phrase  suggested  Rome,  and,  as  there  was  a  Euse- 
bius who  was  bishop  of  Rome  in  Constantine's  time,  the 
Roman  Eusebius  was  substituted  for  the  other,  and  the 
legend  in  this  form  proved  satisfactory.^  Later,  when  it 
became  justly  recognized  that  the  pontificate  of  Euse- 
bius came  too  early  to  admit  of  his  having  converted 
Constantine,  Sylvester,  his  second  successor,  was  put  in 
his  place.  The  legend  of  the  finding  of  the  true  cross, 
in  one  form  of  which  Constantine  is  said  to  have  been 
instructed  and  baptized  by  Eusebius  of  Rome,  is  cited  as 
at  once  the  proof  of  this  theory  and  perhaps  the  vehicle 
by  which  the  change  was  made.^ 

The  latter  legend,  however,  did  not  contain  a  state- 
ment of  the  Roman  baptism  in  its  earliest  forms, ^  prob- 
ably not  till  after  the  legend  of  Constantine's  leprosy  and 

^This  position  lends  itself  to  the  support  of  the  theory  that  the  legend 
of  the  Roman  baptism  arose  in  the  West,  and  possibly  at  Rome;  a  theory 
which  seems  to  me  untenable. 

'  Op.  cit.y  416-422. 

^  Eg.  in  Ambrose  and  Rufinus,  cf.  supra,  p.  119. 


l6o  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [i6o 

cure  had  come  into  existence.  Moreover,  if  as  we  have 
seen/  in  the  story  of  the  finding  of  the  cross,  Eusebius 
continued  to  hold  the  place  of  honor  until  the  eleventh 
century,  this  legend  surely  cannot  be  construed  as  ex- 
plaining the  belief  that  Sylvester  converted  Constantine. 
Nor  can  the  fact  that  a  baptistery  connected  with  the 
Lateran  church  at  Rome  which  Constantine  erected  was 
later  spoken  of  as  the  place  of  his  baptism  explain  the 
Sylvester  legend,  for  this  identification  of  the  place  of 
the  act,  also,  developed  too  late.  No  direct  evidence, 
and  no  important  indirect  evidence  of  this  legendary 
identification  can  be  adduced,  earlier  than  the  statement 
in  the  Liber  Pontificalis  of  Constantine's  leprosy,  baptism 
and  cure  by  Sylvester,  which  at  the  earliest,  would  not 
take  us  back  beyond  the  year  five  hundred  and  thirty.^ 
It  was  in  any  case  an  absurdity  to  represent  Constan- 
tine as  being  baptized  in  a  building  which  he  had  erected 
in  gratitude  for  the  cure  effected  in  his  baptism.  Legend- 
makers,  however,  starting  with  the  supposition  that  he 
had  been  baptized  at  Rome,  might  easily  overlook  the 
inconsistency  of  this  identification  of  the  spot,  or,  as 
they  probably  thought  of  it,  of  the  baptismal  font ;  but 
to  start  with  the  identification  of  the  building  and  then 
develop  this  legend  about  it  would  have  been  too  severe 
a  tax  upon  the  imagination. ^ 

The  locating  of  the  baptism  at  Rome,  therefore,  and 
the  connecting  of  Sylvester  with  it,  can  best  be  explained, 
if  at  all,  on  general  considerations.  Rome  was  the  an- 
cient and  most  famous  capital  of  the  empire,  and  Sylves- 
ter was  bishop  there  during  most  of  Constantine's  reign 
{i.  e.,  314-336);  thus  the  location  of  the  rite  at  Rome 

^  Cf.  supra,  p.  153. 

*  Cf.  ed.  Duchesne,  vol.  i,  pp.  78,  172-174. 
^  Cf.  infra,  pp.  161-165  et  seq. 


l6i]  LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION  i6i 

and  its  connection  with  Sylvester,  whether  effected  in 
the  West,  or  as  seems  more  probable,  in  the  East,  was 
inevitable. 

Thus  Constantine's  conversion  entered  into  the  stream 
of  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  legendary  develop- 
ments in  the  church,  that  centering  in  Pope  Sylvester 
and  preserved  in  the  Vita  Silvestri.^ 

5.  Vita  Silvestri. 
The  best  known  version  of  the  Vita  (or  Gesta)  Sil- 
vestri is  the  Latin  one  given  by  Mombritius.^    The  fol- 
lowing synopsis  is  based  chiefly  on  his  account : 

^  The  chief  apocryphal  or  legendary  account  of  Sylvester  is  a  long 
and  fairly  well  defined  story  variously  referred  to  as  Liber  Silvestri, 
Vita  Silvestri,  or  Gesta  Silvestri,  not  to  be  confused  with  the  "  vita"  or 
gesta  Silvestri  in  the  Liber  Poniiticalis,  though  this  refers  to  incidents 
in  the  story  and  evidently  accepts  it. 

The  legend  has  been  preserved  in  three  languages,  as  follows:  Latin, 
Mombritius,  Sanctuarium,  sive  Vitae  collectae  ex  codibus  MSS.  (Milan, 
about  1479,  and  in  a  recent  edition  in  Paris  in  1910)  vol.  ii,  folio  279 
etseq.,z.ndi  ii,  508-531,  respectively.  Cf.  2l\so  Analecta  Bollandiana, 
vol.  i,  p.  613  et  seg.,  by  P.  Ch  de  Smedt.  Cf.  also  Caialogus  Cod. 
hagiographicorum  bibl.  reg.  Bruxellensis,  pp.  5,  119;  L.  Surius,  De 
probatis  sanctorum  vitis  (Coloniae  Agrippinae,  1618),  in  volume  on 
December,  Dec.  31,  pp.  368-375,  a  translation  from  the  Greek  of  Simeon 
Metaphrastes.  Greek,  Combefis:  Illustrium  Christi  martyrum  triumphi 
Paris,  1659),  p.  254  et  seg.,  from  MS.  Mazarinaeus,  No.  513,  Bibli- 
otheque  Nationale.  Another  Greek  text  is  in  MS.  Cod.,  Paris,  1448, 
folio  I.  Syriac:  Land,  Anedocta  syriaca,  vol.  iii,  pp.  46-76,  from  MS. 
Brit.  Mus.  Add.,  17202,  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century.  Another 
version  in  MS.  12174,  Brit.  Mus.  Cf.  Duchesne:  op.  cit.,  i,  cix. 
Later  repetitions  of  the  legend  in  Byzantine  authors  are:  Ephraem  (in 
the  14th  century),  ed.  Bekker  (Bonn,  1840),  pp.  21-25;  ed.  Migne,  P. 
G.,  vol.  143,  cols.  1-380.  Cedrenus:  Compendium  of  History,  ed. 
Bekker  (Bonn,  1838-9),  vol.  i,  pp.  472-520;  ed.  Migne,  P.  G.,  vols. 
121-122.  Zonaras:  Chronicle ^  ed.  Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  134,  cols.  1097- 
II 18.  Glycas:  Chronicle,  ed.  Bekker  (Bonn,  1836),  pp.  460-468,  ed. 
Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  158,  cols.  1-958.  For  a  short  summary  of  Glycas' 
version,  see  Richardson's  "  Prolegomena,"  in  Nicene  and  Post  Nicene 
Fathers,  Eusebius,  p.  442,  and  for  comments  on  the  other  authors,  pp. 
453-454. 

■■^  See  Duchesne:  Liber  Pontificalis,  i,  pp.  cx,  cxii,  cxiii.  Synopsis 


l62  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [162 

A  dedicatory  letter  says  the  accompanying  life  of  Syl- 
vester was  taken  from  the  Acts  of  the  bishops  of  the 
principal  sees  which,  together  with  many  Acts  of  mar- 
tyrs, were  written  by  Eusebins  of  Caesarea  but  not  in- 
cluded in  his  Church  History.^  Sylvester,  a  young 
Roman,  entertained  Timothy  of  Antioch  fleeing  from 
persecution.  Timothy,  however,  was  executed  and  Syl- 
vester threatened  with  death,  which  he  escaped  by  a 
miracle.  Bishop  Miltiades  (or  Melchiades)  raised  him 
to  the  priesthood,  and  at  the  death  of  that  bishop,  Syl- 
vester, against  his  own  will,  was  made  his  successor. 
After  a  long  description  of  his  administration,  a  visit  of 
Euphronius  from  Antioch  to  Rome  is  narrated,  at  whose 
advice  Sylvester  changes  the  garb  of  his  higher  clergy, 
calls  the  days  of  the  week  by  numerals  instead  of  names, 
and  makes  Sundays  and  Thursdays  festival  days,  with 
Wednesdays,  Fridays  and  Saturdays  fast  days.  Next, 
Sylvester  frees  Rome  from  a  dragon  dwelling  under  the 
Tarpeian  rock.  (This  episode  is  omitted  by  Mombritius). 

Then  begins  the  legend  of  Constantine's  conversion. 
At  the  instance  of  his  wife,  Maximiana,  daughter  of 
Diocletian  (a  gross  historical  error),  Constantine  begins 
a  persecution  from  which  Sylvester  took  refuge  in  Mt. 
Syraptim  (probably  an  imaginary  name,  but  afterwards 
identified  with  Soracte).  The  emperor  is  afflicted  with 
leprosy,  to  cure  which  pagan  priests  order  a  bath  in  the 
blood  of  infants.  Infants  are  collected  for  the  purpose, 
but  Constantine  relents  and  sends  them  home.    In  the 

given  here  is,  in  part,  taken  from  this  work,  vol.  i,  p.  cx,  et  seq.  For 
a  short  summary  in  English,  see  Hodgkin:  Italy  and  her  Invaders,  v'n, 
p.  135  et  seq. 

^The  version  published  bySurius  (p.  368)  does  not  connect  Eusebius' 
name  with  the  story,  leaving  it  anonymous.  Cf.  Friedrich:  Constan- 
iinische  Schenkung,  pp.  79-81. 


163]  LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION  163 

night  Saints  Peter  and  Paul  appear  to  him,  promising  in 
reward  for  this,  healing  from  his  disease  if  he  will  seek 
out  Sylvester  and  do  as  he  says.  In  the  presence  of  the 
emperor  Sylvester  shows  likenesses  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
who  are  identified  by  Constantine  as  the  persons  v^ho 
appeared  to  him.  Then  follows  Christian  instruction,  a 
solemn  fast,  and  baptism  of  the  emperor  in  the  baths  of 
the  Lateran  palace.  As  Constantine  enters  the  water,  a 
bright  light  is  seen,  and  he  is  healed. 

Constantine  then  directs  that  Christ  be  worshipped 
everywhere,  that  blasphemy  be  punished,  and  that 
churches  be  built  with  public  money.  There  is,  how- 
ever, to  be  no  new  church  organized  without  sanction 
from  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and  all  other  -bishops  are  to 
be  subject  to  him.  The  eighth  day  after  his  baptism 
Constantine  commenced  the  building  of  the  basilica  of  a 
church  of  St.  Peter ;  the  next  day  he  began  to  build  a 
church  in  the  Lateran  palace,  and  issued  edicts  for  the 
conversion  of  pagans.  The  Senate  still  remaining  pagan, 
Constantine  called  an  assembly  in  the  Ulpian  Basilica,  at 
which  he  urged  conversion  on  the  strength  of  his  ex- 
perience, but  says  he  will  not  compel  men  to  change. 

Helena,  then  living  in  Bithynia  with  her  grandchildren, 
writes  approving  Constantine's  renunciation  of  paganism, 
but  urging  him  to  adopt  Judaism.  The  matter  is  de- 
cided on  August  13,  315  (die  iduum  aug.  Constantino 
Aug.  IV  et  Licinio  Aug.  IV  cons.)  by  a  disputation  be- 
fore Constantine  and  Helena  at  Rome  between  Sylvester 
and  twelve  Jewish  rabbis.  The  pope  successfully  up- 
holds the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  and  the  incarnation 
(stating  the  latter  so  as  to  exclude  monothelitism  so 
thoroughly  that  some  have  detected  a  trace  of  Nestorian- 
ism).  The  rabbis  then  show  the  power  of  their  religion 
by  whispering  the  name  of  Jehovah  into  the  ear  of  a  bull, 


164 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[104 


killing  him  instantly,  to  the  astonishment  of  all.  Syl- 
vester, however,  raises  the  bull  from  the  dead  by  whisper- 
ing the  name  of  Christ.  Helena  and  great  multitudes 
with  her  are  thereby  converted  to  Christianity. 

The  Latin  versions  of  the  legend  end  with  two  episodes, 
the  miraculous  founding  of  Constantinople,  and  the  find- 
ing of  the  true  cross,  which  are  not  found  in  the  Greek 
versions.^ 

6.  Development  of  the  Sylvester -Constantine  Legend 

To  understand  the  history  of  this  legend  it  is  neces- 
sary to  distinguish  between  the  legend  itself  e.  the 
bare  story  that  Constantine  was  a  persecutor  afflicted 
with  leprosy,  and  was  converted,  baptized  and  cured 
through  the  agency  of  Sylvester  at  Rome)  and  differ- 
ences of  detail  or  variations  in  the  different  written 
versions.  The  legend,  in  its  bare  outlines,  as  we  have 
seen,  probably  originated,  not  at  Rom.e,  but  on  the  out- 
skirts of  the  Empire,  among  people  familiar  only  with 
the  great  names  and  events  of  Roman  history.  Aside 
from  considerations  already  mentioned,  the  scarcity  and 
confusion  of  the  topographical  references  it  contains,  its 
slow  growth  in  popularity  at  Rome,  and  the  stress  it 
lays  upon  the  visit  and  advice  of  Timotheus,  indicate  a 
foreign,  probably  an  Eastern  source,  and  possibly  a 
source  as  far  east  as  Syria  and  Armenia. 

^  The  best  discussions  of  this  Sylvester  legend  are:  Dollinger,  Papst- 
fabeln  des  Mitielalters,  1863,  ed.  by  Friedrich  with  notes,  1890.  (Bol- 
linger's further  work  on  the  legend  was  left  unfinished  at  his  death;. 
Frothingham,  ed.  Homily  on  the  Baptism  of  Constantine,  (L'Omelia 
di  Giacomo  di  Sarug)  in  Memorie  delta  r.  Accademia  dei  Lincei,  classe 
di  scienze  morale,  vol.  viii,  1883).  J.  Langen,  Geschichte  d.  rom. 
Kirche  (1885),  ii,  p.  195  et  seq.  Abbe  Duchesne,  ed.  Liber  Fontijicalis, 
vol.  i  (1886),  pp.  cvii-cxx.  F.  J.  Dolger,  "  Die  Taufe  Konstantins  u.  i. 
Probleme,"  in  Konstantin  d.  Grosse  u.  s.  Zeit  (1913),  pp.  377-381, 
394-426.    Friedrich,  Die  Co7istantinische  Schenkung,  Nordlingen,  1889. 


165]  LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION  165 

At  Rome  itself  this  legend  first  comes  to  light  in  refer- 
ences to  books  containing  it,  in  the  time  of  Pope  Sym- 
machus  (498-514).  There  is  no  record  in  VN^riters,  his- 
torians, poets,  orators,  official  documents,  liturgies  or 
inscriptions,  of  any  local  Roman  tradition  connected  with 
the  legend  until  the  eighth  century.  In  fact,  there  is 
no  trace  of  the  legend  in  extant  inscriptions  or  monu- 
ments in  Rome  before  the  tenth  century.'  It  came  into 
vogue  very  slowly  and  does  not  seem  to  have  prevailed 
there  until  after  it  had  been  taken  up  in  many  other 
places.  These  considerations  show  both  the  lack  of  any 
historical  ground  whatever  for  the  legend,  and  its  non- 
Roman  source.' 

However  the  legend  of  Constantine's  leprosy  and  cure 
started,  it  got  to  Rome  by  the  end  of  the  fifth  century, 
possibly  earlier.  Duchesne  thinks  it  may  have  been  put 
into  literary  Latin  by  some  eastern  monk  such  as  Dion- 
ysius  Exiguus.3  The  legend  and  a  book  containing  it 
are  referred  to  in  the  forged  documents  brought  out  by 
ecclesiastical  controversies  centering  about  Symmachus 
(bishop  of  Rome  498-514).  The  pseudo  [?]  Decretum 
Gelasii  P.  de  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  libris  (c.  A. 
D.  501,  Duchesne:  after  533,  Friedrich)^  says  that  the 
anonymous  Acts  of  Sylvester  are  read  by  many  of  the 
orthodox  in  Rome  and  many  churches  elsewhere  and 
does  not  condemn  the  practice. ^    The  pseudo  Consti- 

^  Duchesne,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  cxiii,  cxvi.  ""'Ibid.,  i,  cxvi. 

^Op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  cxiii  et  seq. 

*  Cf.  Mirbt,  in  Real  Encyk.  vi,  475,  for  the  view  that  it  was  merely 
revised  and  interpolated  under  Pope  Hormisdas  (514-523). 

^  Actus  beati  Silvestri,  apostolicae  sedis  praesulis,  licet  ejus  qui  con- 
scripsit  nomen  ignoretur,  a  multis  tamen  in  urbe  Romana  catholicis 
legi  cognovimus,  et  pro  antique  usu  multae  hoc  immitantur  ecclesiae, 
*  *  *  beati  Pauli  apostoli  praecedat  sententia:  'omnia  probate,  quod 
bonum  est  venete.' 


l66  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [i66 

tutum  Silvestri  (about  501-508,  Duchesne,  op.  cit.,  i, 
cxxxiv)  mentions  briefly  the  leprosy  and  cure.  The 
pseudo  Gesta  Liberii,  from  the  same  time,  refers  to  an 
old  work  which  told  of  Constantine's  leprosy  and  his 
cure  by  Silvester.' 

These  references  show^  that  there  must  have  been  in 
existence  at  Rome  by  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury, a  book  containing  the  legend  of  Constantine's 
leprosy  and  baptism  by  Silvester,  that  it  was  not  asso- 
ciated with  the  name  of  any  author,  did  not  enjoy  a  great 
vogue,  for  its  truthfulness  was  questioned,  and  it  needed 
apology.  It  certainly  must  have  contradicted  not  only 
the  facts  of  history,  but  current  opinion  as  well.^ 

It  is  probable  that  toward  the  end  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury this  anonymous  Vita  Silvestri  was  touched  up  by 
an  enthusiast  for  the  primacy  of  Rome  who  saw  the 
opportunity  it  afforded.  It  was  not  made  much  of,  so 
far  as  we  know,  in  the  middle  of  the  century  after  the 
stormy  days  of  Symmachus.  But  by  the  time  of  Greg- 
ory the  Great 3  we  find  a  version  with  added  details, 
represented  in  the  text  published  by  Mombritius."^ 

^"  Hoc  cum  [Liberius]  legisset  ex  libro  antique,  edoctus  a  libro  Sil- 
vestri episcopi  Romanorum,  et  quod  publice  praedicaret,  in  nomine 
Jesu  Christi  a  lepra  mundatum  fuisse  per  Silvestrum  Constantium  patrum 
Constantius."  In  emphasizing  the  antiquity  of  the  Liber  ox  Vita  Silves- 
tri, and  commending  it  by  affirming  its  use  by  Liberius,  the  forger  proba- 
bly gives  himself  away,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Duchesne,  for  in  the  Vita 
Silvestri  Liberius  is  unhistorically  represented  as  already  dead.  The 
forger,  however,  may  have  had  another  text  of  the  Vita  Silvestri. 

^  Friedrich  thinks  that  this  form  is  represented  by  the  version  pub- 
lished by  Surius,  which  is  also  anonymous.  Cf.  Constayitinische  Schen- 
kung,  p.  81.  For  fuller  discussion  of  the  above,  see  Friedrich,  70-81, 
and  Duchesne,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  cxiii-cxv. 

^Pope,  590-604. 

*  Friedrich,  c?jz!>.  rf/.,  p.  81  et  seq.  Duchesne  had,  before  Friedrich, 
given  approximately  the  same  date,  but  looked  upon  the  version  in 
Monbritius  as  the  earliest  extant  form  from  which  other  versions  were 
derived. 


l57]  LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION  167 

Here  the  whole  legend  of  Sylvester  purports  to  be 
taken  from  a  collection  of  twenty  books  of  Acts  of 
martyrs  and  bishops  of  the  principal  sees  written  by 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  The  name  of  Sylvester's  mother 
is  given,  the  speech  of  Sylvester  against  the  Jewish 
rabbis  has  a  decided  turn  against  the  monothelites,  and 
Constantine  is  made  to  emphasize  the  primacy  of  Rome, 
while  Sylvester  is  not  represented  as  making  the  trip  to 
Constantinople,  of  which  the  version  in  Surius  tells. 

This  version  had  apparently  become  known  in  the  east 
before  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  where  in  fact  the 
Vita  Silvestri  generally  became  popular,  and  seems  even 
to  have  displaced  the  original  eastern  form  of  the  legend 
of  Constantine's  conversion.' 

Friedrich  has  discussed  an  interesting  passage  in  the 
correspondence  of  Gregory  the  Great,  in  which  Eulogius, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  wrote  to  him  asking  for  a 
copy  of  the  collection  of  the  Acts  of  martyrs  and  bishops 
written  by  Eusebius.  Gregory  replied  ^  that  he  had  not 
known  whether  they  had  been  collected  or  not,  and  that 
he  had  not  been  able  to  find  in  his  archives  or  in  libraries 
at  Rome  any  except  a  few  scattered  Acts  in  one  manu- 
script volume.  If  he  found  any  such  collection  as  was 
asked  for  he  would  send  it.  Friederich's  interpretation 
of  all  this  is  that  the  Vita  Silvestri,  worked  over  in  the 
interest  of  the  primacy  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and  vali- 
dated by  a  preface  claiming  Eusebian  authorship,  had 

^  Duchesne,  op.  cii.,  i,  p.  cxx.  One  of  the  Greek  renderings  even  re- 
tained the  part  of  the  preface  stating  that  the  work  was  translated  from 
the  Greek  into  Latin,  thus  putting  his  Greek  into  the  embarrassing 
position  of  being  a  translation  from  the  Greek.  This  process  reminds 
one  of  a  form  of  the  Autobiography  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  which  wa 
translated  into  French,  then  this  was  translated  into  English,  and  this 
back  into  French.    Cf.  Macdonald's  ed.,  p.  xv. 

^July,  598. 


l68  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [i68 

fallen  into  the  hands  of  Eulogius  at  Alexandria.  He 
thereupon  put  Rome  into  an  embarrassing  situation  by 
writing  for  the  collection  of  the  Acts  by  Eusebius  from 
which  the  Vt^a  Silvestri  in  its  preface  claimed  to  come. 
Gregory,  in  reply,  could  only  imply  that  the  other  Acts 
were  scattered  and  lost,  and  asks  for  time.^  Though 
these  inferences  are  in  places  overdrawn,  the  passage 
certainly  looks  like  a  reference  to  the  preface  of  the  Vita 
Silvestri,  and  the  implications  must,  in  the  main,  be 
accepted. 

After  Gregory,  the  Vita  Silvestri  was  called  to  the 
attention  of  pilgrims  in  a  Roman  pilgrim  book  composed 
under  Pope  Honorius  (625-638).  ^  The  Liber  Pontifi- 
calis  incorporated  in  its  life  of  Silvester  his  flight  to 
Syraptim,  the  baptism  of  Constantine  by  Silvester,  and 
Constantine's  cure  from  leprosy.^ 

A  legend  combining  two  such  personages  as  Constan- 
tine and  Sylvester  could  hardly  remain  entirely  stereo- 
typed. The  manuscripts  which  have  come  dov\^n  in  differ- 
ent languages  show  considerable  variation  of  incident. 
Friedrich  has  argued  with  considerable  plausibility  that 
the  legend  of  the  miraculous  founding  of  Constantinople 
through  a  dream  in  which  Sylvester  figured,  came  into 
it  not  long  before  the  end  of  the  seventh  century. 
Not  many  generations  after  this  a  modified  version  of  it 
appeared  as  the  Constitutum  Constantini,  that  famous 
document  which  containing  the  Donation  of  Constantine 
was  destined  to  play  a  great  part  in  the  history  of  Europe. 

^Friedrich,  op.  cit.,  pp.  83-87. 

'  DoUinger,  Papstfabeln,  ed.  Friedrich,  p.  65. 

'Ed.  Duchesne,  i,  170  et  seq.,  ed,  Mommsen,  p.  47  et  seq.  The 
former  assigns  the  original  compilation,  including  Sylvester's  life,  to  a 
time  not  later  than  Boniface  IT  (530-532).  Mommsen,  following 
Waitz,  puts  the  work  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century. 

*C/.  supra,  pp.  150-151. 


LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION 


169 


General  Acceptance  of  the  Sylvester- Co7istanti7ie  Legend 
The  emergence  of  the  legend  of  Constantine's  Roman 
baptism  brought  medieval  writers  face  to  face  with  a 
question  of  fact,  for  the  knowledge  of  the  earlier  ac- 
counts of  his  baptism  at  Nicomedia  had  been  preserved, 
not  only  in  the  east  by  Eusebius  and  his  followers,  but 
in  the  west  by  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Prosper  and  other 
authors.  The  former  legend  w^as  also  contradicted  by 
the  widely  used  Historia  Tripartita,  compiled  from  the 
three  continuators  of  Eusebius'  Church  History.  Con- 
fronted with  this  problem  of  historical  criticism,  the 
middle  ages  followed  its  natural  bent  and  accepted  the 
one  which  appealed  most  to  its  imagination  and  its 
orthodoxy.  A  few  writers  such  as  Isidore  (636),  Fred- 
egar  (658),  Frehulf  (c.  840),  Hermann  the  Lam.e  of 
Reichenau  (c.  1050)  and  Marianus  Scotus  (c.  1050), 
held  to  the  older  version  of  Constantine's  baptism,  in 
some  cases  apparently  not  knowing  the  later  legend,  in 
some  cases  rejecting  it.  The  Sylvester  legend,  however, 
won  the  field  almost  completely  and  in  the  later  middle 
ages  was  seldom  disputed.'  It  furnished  one  of  the 
arguments  at  the  second  council  of  Nicea  for  the  use  of 

'Dollinger  in  Fapsifabehi ,  ed.  Friedrich,  pp.  (:S-'j2  et  passim,  col- 
lected a  long  and  almost  exhaustive  list  of  references  in  medieval  writ- 
ers. Duchesne:  Liber  Poniificalis,  i,  p.  cxv,  gives  a  number  of  refer- 
ences in  both  Latin  and  Greek  authors,  concluding  that  after  the 
commencement  of  the  ninth  century  all  the  Byzantine  chroniclers 
admit  the  Sylvester  legend  more  or  less  completely. 

In  the  West,  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  Gregory  of  Tours, 
Hist.  Franc,  ii,  31,  described  the  baptism  of  Clovis;  "  procedit  novus 
Constantinus  ad  lavacrum,  deleturus  leprae  veteris  morbum,  sorden- 
tesque  maculas  gestorum  antiquorum  recenti  latice  deleturus."  The 
Anglo-Saxon  bishop  Aldhelm,  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  century,  is 
thought  to  have  introduced  the  Constantine-Sylvester  legend  into  gen- 
eral literature  in  his  ''Liber  de  laudibus  lirginitaiis''  chap.  25  {cf. 
Friedrich:  Con.  Schenck.,  pp.  156-137).  The  subsequent  list  includes 
Bede,  Ado,  Pope  Paul  I.,  Pope  Hadrian  I.,  Odericus  Vitalis,  Hugo  of 


I-O  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [lyo 

images.'  Even  in  modern  times  it  was  incorporated  in 
Baronius'  AnnaW  and  taken  seriously  by  Severintis 
Binius,  whose  comments  are  printed  as  notes  in  Migne's 
PaU^ologia} 

The  whole  story  of  Constantine's  leprosy,  cure  and 
baptism  gained  graphical  representation  in  a  series  of 
ten  pictures  in  the  oratory  of  St.  Sylvester  adjoining  the 
church  of  Quattro  Incoronati  at  Rome.  These  probably 
date  from  the  restoration  of  the  oratory  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  but  may  possibly  be  earlier.^  Later  tradition 
located  the  spot  where  Constantine  and  Sylvester  were 
supposed  to  have  parted. ^  It  even  influenced  geography 
by  identifying  the  Syraptis  or  Syraptim  of  the  legend 
with  the  real  Soracte  and  changing  the  latter  name  to 
the  former.  Here,  very  fittingly,  a  monastery  of  St. 
Sylvester  was  built  in  the  eighth  century.^ 

The  reasons  for  the  popularity  and  well-nigh  universal 
acceptance  of  this  incredible  legend  are  revealed  by 
writers  who  discussed  it  before  it  had  entirely  displaced 
the  historical  facts.  It  seemed  unthinkable  to  them  that 
Constantine  should  have  presided  at  the  Council  of 

Fleury,  Ratramnus,  Bonizo,  Martinus  Polonus,  all  thepapal  chroniclers 
after  the  Liber  Pontificalis,  Nicholas  I.,  Leo  IX.,  collections  of  canon 
law  by  Anselm,  Deusdedit,  Gratian  (in  the  palea,  or  later  insertions), 
the  Kaiserchronik,  Konrad  von  Wurzburg,  Wolfram  von  Eschenbach, 
and  others. 

'  Cf.  the  first  Act  of  the  Council. 

^  Under  A.  D.  324,  the  date  to  which  the  Roman  baptism  of  Con- 
stantine was  commonly  assigned,  No.  32  et  seq. 

^  Latin  series,  viii,  col.  795  ei  seq. 

^Ci.  Arch,  della  Societa  rem.  di  St.  patria  xii  (1889),  p.  162.  Man- 
cini:  Vita  di  Lorenzo  Valla,  p.  154,  note. 

^  Gregorovius:  Rome  in  the  Middle  Ages,  ii,  p.  361. 

*  Duchesne:  Op.  cit.,  i,  p.  cxix.  Hartmann,  Italien  im  Mittelalter, 
Band  ii,  Halfte  ii  (Gotha,  1903),  p.  2^2. 


I^i]  LATER  LEGENDS  OF  CONVERSION  lyi 

Nicea,  while  still  unbaptized.  His  baptism  by  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia,  a  bishop  tainted  with  Arian  heresy,  seemed 
either  improbable,  or  the  result  of  a  relapse,  not  a  nat- 
ural consequence  of  his  conversion  from  paganism. 
Moreover,  how  could  such  a  hero  have  postponed  bap- 
tism to  his  death-bed?  The  existence  in  Rome  of  a 
baptistery  bearing  the  name  of  Constantine  helped  to 
localize  the  place  of  his  baptism.  Moreover,  the  miracu- 
lous element,  instead  of  being  an  obstacle  to  acceptance 
of  the  legend,  was  fairly  demanded  by  the  great  signifi- 
cance of  Constantine's  conversion.  The  absence  of  early 
accounts  corroborating  it  proved  only  that  Constantius 
had  tried  to  suppress  the  story  of  his  father's  leprosy.^ 

Men  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  skilled  harmonizers  of 
discrepancies.  Their  treatment  of  this  legend  shows 
that  their  business  was  not  primarily  to  discover  facts, 
but  to  systematize  accepted  teachings.  They,  therefore, 
after  accepting  the  legend,  easily  disposed  of  the  his- 
torical Nicomedian  baptism.  The  Gesta  Lideru  smoothtd 
over  difficulties  by  postulating  another  emperor  of  the 
same  name.  Bishop  Bonizo  rejected  the  Eusebian  bap- 
tism as  an  error  growing  out  of  confusion  of  fact  and 
name,  due  to  the  belief  that  Bishop  Eusebius  of  Rome 
had  instructed  Constantine  in  Christianity.  Ekkehard, 
about  I  ICQ,  accepted  both  baptisms  and  harmonized 
them  by  the  supposition  that  Constantine  after  his  Roman 
conversion  had  fallen  into  the  Arian  heresy  which  led  to 
his  having  the  rite  repeated  by  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia. 
This  happy  device  seems  to  have  been  generally  fol- 
lowed. The  problem  was  then,  from  all  points  of  view, 
solved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  medieval  mind,  and  the 
wonderful  legend  of  Sylvester's  relations  to  Constantine 


'  So  Severinus  Binius.    Cf.  Migne,  op.  ciL,  col.  800. 


1-2  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [172 

had  clear  sailing.  It  still  forms  a  part  of  the  Roman 
Breviary^  to  be  read  on  Sylvester's  Day,  the  last  day  of 
the  calendar  year.' 

So  the  piety  of  the  early  Middle  Ages  found  one  of  its 
most  characteristic  utterances.  The  wonder-working 
power  of  God  was  displayed  in  the  miracles  of  the  Syl- 
vester legend,  and  the  triumph  of  the  Christian  faith  set 
forth  in  glowing  colors.  But  the  hero  of  these  divine 
manifestations  was  no  longer  Constantine,  as  in  the 
earlier  legend,  it  was  Sylvester,  the  priest  and  bishop. 
The  emperor  took  his  true  place  as  a  mere  creature  of 
this  world,  the  object  of  God's  wrath  for  his  sins,  and 
the  beneficiary  of  a  priest's  intercession  when  his  heart 
had  relented.  The  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  kingdom  of 
priests,  had  come  into  its  own  ;  its  glory  and  its  power 
made  the  Roman  emperor  himself  but  a  miserable,  help- 
less mortal  in  comparison  with  the  divine  power  dis- 
pensed by  the  Pope,  the  head  of  the  church. 

*The  revision  of  the  Breviary  recently  completed  consists  merely  of 
a  rearrangement  of  parts  and  makes  little  or  no  change  in  the  contents. 
C/.,  also,  under  Nov.  9  and  18. 


PART  THREE 

THE  SPURIOUS  CONSTANTINE:  THE  CON- 
STITUM  CONSTANTINI 


CHAPTER  I 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CONSTITUTUM  CONSTANTINI 

I.  The  Constitutum  Constantini  and  the  Donation  it 

Contains 

We  have  seen  that  medieval  legends  of  Constantine,. 
especially  that  of  his  healing  and  baptism  by  Sylvester, 
existed  in  a  more  or  less  fluid  state.  This  is  true  of  all 
legends,  indeed  of  all  narratives  in  manuscript,  and  in  a 
lesser  degree  even  of  some  printed  documents.  Varia- 
tions in  printed  books,  however,  are  slight  and  unim- 
portant, compared  to  those  v^hich  develop  in  oral  or 
manuscript  tradition.  Many  medieval  writers,  in  copy- 
ing narratives  of  others,  treated  them  as  an  author  would 
treat  his  own  notes,  omitting,  adding  and  changing  at 
will.  Not  a  little  of  our  modern  sense  of  accuracy  and 
truth  in  historical  work  is  due  to  the  mechanical  inven- 
tion of  printing.^  When,  therefore,  a  form  of  this  par- 
ticular legend  emerged  in  which  Constantine  donated 
land,  privileges  and  authority  to  Sylvester  as  bishop  of 
Rome  and  pope,  one  scarcely  knows  whether  to  call  it 
forgery  or  romance.  Since  the  author  of  it,  however, 
evidently  took  pains  to  give  what  he  thought  to  be  a 
legal  form  and  specified  grants  which  would  really  be  of 
use  and  importance  in  his  time,  it  is  not  too  harsh  a 
judgment  to  pronounce  his  words  a  forgery,  such  as 
even  the  laws  of  his  own  time  severely  condemned,^ 

^For  this  suggestion  I  am  indebted  to  Professor  J.  H.  Robinson. 
^The  motive  of  the  forgery  will  be  discussed  below,  p.  211  et  seq. 
Cf.  also  supra,  pp.  12-13. 

175]  17s 


176  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [176 

The  Donation  of  Constantine  (or  Constitutum  Con- 
stantini,  to  use  the  original  title  of  the  entire  document)^ 
extended  the  legend  of  the  Vita  Silvestri  by  expanding 
and  developing  the  emperor's  expression  of  piety  and 
gratitude  for  his  miraculous  cure  from  leprosy.  It  is  a 
document  of  some  3,000  words,  purporting  to  be  from 
the  hand  of  Constantine,  running  in  his  name,  and  with 
the  imperial  subscription.  It  contains  the  usual  divisions 
of  a  medieval  legal  charter:  ''invocation  of  the  Trinity," 
''title  of  the  emperor,"  "address"  to  Sylvester,  "greet- 
ing," then  a  rather  long  "proem"  in  the  form  of  a  con- 
fession of  faith  and  a  long  "narration"  of  Constantine's 
leprosy  and  cure  by  baptism  as  contained  in  the  Vita  Sil- 
vestri. After  this  comes  the  "  disposition  "  reciting  that 
since  Sylvester  is  the  vicar  of  the  Son  of  God,  he  and  his 
successors  shall  have  enlarged  power  and  greater  than 
imperial  honor,  and  shall  have  primacy  over  the  sees  of 
Antioch,  Alexandria,  Constantinople  (vv^hich  even  ac- 
cording to  the  legend  itself  had  not  yet  been  founded, 
much  less  made  an  episcopal  see)  and  Jerusalem,  and 
over  the  whole  Church  universal.  Constantine  proclaims 
that  he  had  built  the  Lateran  church  and  baptistry  and 
makes  it  "head  and  summit  of  all  churches."  He  has 
built  and  ornamented  the  churches  of  St.  Peter  and  of 
St.  Paul,  and  to  supply  their  lamps  with  oil  has  given 
them  endowments  in  Judea,  Greece,  Asia,  Thrace,  Africa, 
Italy  and  various  islands.  He  gives  to  Sylvester,  "  chief 
priest  and  pope  of  the  whole  Roman  world,"  the  Lateran 
palace,  his  own  diadem  or  crown,  frigium,  collar,  purple 

*  Strictly  speaking,  the  phrase  "Donation  of  Constantine"  applies 
only  to  one  section  of  the  document,  that  in  which  the  grant  of  priv- 
ileges and  possessions  (the  donatio)  is  made,  but  the  use  of  the  phrase 
as  synonomous  with  the  whole  document,  the  Constitutum  Constan- 
tini,  is  so  general  that  it  is  almost  unavoidable. 


Ij-j]  THE  CONSTITUTUM  CONSTANTINI  177 

robe,  scarlet  tunic  and  all  imperial  insignia,  scepter, 
seals,  etc.  To  the  Roman  clergy  he  gives  the  privileges 
of  Roman  nobility,  the  special  right  to  use  white  cover- 
ings for  their  horses  and  other  distinctive  trappings,  and, 
v^ith  the  pope,  the  sole  control  over  entrance  to  priestly 
honors.  He  deeds  his  golden  diadem  again  to  the  pope, 
but  since  it  would  not  be  fitting  for  him  to  wear  this 
over  his  priest's  headdress  which  he  wears  to  the  honor 
of  St.  Peter,  the  emperor  proposes  to  honor  him  other- 
wise, notably  by  himself  acting  as  his  squire  and  leading 
his  horse.  That  the  pope's  ofifice  may  not  be  cheapened, 
Constantine  again  gives  him  his  ow^n  palace,  also  ''the 
city  of  Rome  and  all  the  provinces,  places  and  states  of 
Italy,  and  the  western  regions,"  (i.  e.  Lombardy, 
Venetia,  and  Istria).  He  furthermore  transfers  his  own 
empire  to  Byzantium,  because  ''wdiere  the  primate  of 
priests  and  the  head  of  the  Christian  religion  is  estab- 
lished by  the  heavenly  emperor,  it  is  not  right  than  an 
earthly  emperor  should  have  authority  there." 

Then  follows  the  "sanction"  solemnly  confirming  this 
donation  forever,  and  threatening  any  scofTer,  oddly 
enough,  w^th  no  physical  penalty,  but  that  he  would  en- 
counter the  opposition  of  SS.  "  Peter  and  Paul  in  this 
life  and  the  future,  and  go  down  to  be  burned  in  the  lowest 
hell  with  the  devil  and  all  the  impious."  The  "  corrobora- 
tion" follows,  afHrming  the  signatures  by  the  emperor's 
own  hands  (sic),  etc.;  then  follow  the  final  ''protocol" 
with  the  fact  of  signature  indicated,  and  the  benediction, 
and  the  date  (in  an  imaginary  and  impossible  consulship).' 

-  For  full  text  of  the  document,  cf.  Appendix  ii.  The  text  I  have 
used  is  by  far  the  best  one  published,  from  the  oldest  MS.  and  splendidly 
edited,  namely,  that  of  Zeumer,  in  the  Fesigabeiur  Rvdolf  vonGneist, 
Berlin,  1888.  This  text  is  also  given  in  Haller,  Die  Quellen  zur 
Geschichie  der Entstehung  des  Kirchenstaats  (1907, )  p.  241  et  seq.  There 


1/8 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[178 


2.  Acceptance  a7id  Use  of  the  Donatio7i'' 

Such  was  the  document  which  was  incorporated  in  the 
Pseudo-Tsidorean  Decretals  when  this  collection  was 
made  in  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century/  It  was  cited 
as  authoritative  by  Ado  of  Vienne  and  Hincmar  of 
Rheims.  It  was  accepted  in  the  collections  of  canon  law 
by  Anselm  of  Lucca,  Cardinal  Deusdedit,  the  so-called 
Ivo  of  Chartres,  Hugo  of  Fleury,  de  j^egia  potestate  et 
ecclesiastica  dignitate  and,  though  omitted  by  Gratian 
himself,  was  soon  put  in  his  collection  under  the  "  palea." 
It  was  referred  to  as  valid  or  used  by  many  popes,  in- 
cluding Leo  IX,  Urban  II,  Eugenius  III,  Innocent  III, 
Gregory  IX,^  Innocent  IV,  Nicholas  III,  Boniface  VIII, 
and  John  XXII.  Though  Gregory  VII  apparently  did 
not  use  it,  his  representative,  Peter  Damiani,  did  so.  It 
may  possibly  have  been  in  the  mind  of  other  popes  who 
exacted  oaths  from  prospective  emperors  that  they  would 
preserve  all  the  rights  and  possessions  granted  by  all 
previous  emperors  to  the  see  of  St.  Peter,  and  may  also 
have  influenced  Hadrian  IV. ^ 

It  was  accepted  by  the  great  majority  of  the  writers  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  lawyers,  historical  writers,  theologians. 
Even  those  who  regretted  it  or  denied  its  validity,  and 

are  also  texts  in  Grauert,  Die  Ko^istantinische  Schenkung  and  Friedrich, 
ditto:  Hinschius,  ed.,  Decretales  pseudo-Isidoriafiae  (1863),  pp.  249- 
254;  and  elsewhere.  For  English  translation,  see  E.  F.  Henderson, 
Select  Historical  Documenls  of  the  Middle  Ages,  pp.  319-329. 

^Between  847  and  853,  Hinschius,  op.  cit.,  p.  cci. 

^  For  extended  account  of  its  use  by  Gregory  IX.,  see  Gregcrovius, 
Rome  in  the  Middle  Ages,  vol.  v,  pp.  185-186. 

^  For  most  of  these  and  some  other  references,  cf.  Bollinger,  op.  cit., 
chapter  on  "Constant.  Schenkung."  Cf.  also  Codex  diploniaticus 
dominii  temporalis  s.  sedis.  I  (Rome,  1861),  p.  434,  for  Clement  V  in 
1310.  Cf.,  also  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Art.  "Donation  of  Constan- 
tine." 


lyg]  THE  COXSTITUTUM  COXSTANTIWI  lyg 

Opposed  extension  of  papal  power,  for  the  most  part  did 
not  question  its  genuineness.  Dante's  feelings  on  the 
subject  were  very  strong,  but  he  had  no  thought  of 
denying  that  the  donation  had  taken  place.'  A  difficulty 
was  involved  for  the  theologians,  for  they  held  that  the 
Pope's  power  was  derived  from  God,  not  from  man,  that 
he  \vas  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  primate  of  the 
Church  from  the  very  first.  Their  talent  for  harmoni- 
zing was  highly  developed,  however,  and  where  they 
thought  of  the  inconsistency  involved  they  solved  it  by 
postulating  that  Constantine's  donation  was  merely  a 
restitution  of  what  other  emperors  and  ecclesiastics  had 
usurped  from  Rome. 

The  Greeks  took  the  Constitutum  Constantini  into 
their  canon  law  in  spite  of  its  exaltation  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome.  This  w-as  more  than  counter-balanced  in  the 
eyes  of  their  clergy  by  the  fact  that  the  second  ecu- 
menical council  granted  the  bishop  of  Constantinople 
privileges  similar  to  those  enjoyed  by  the  bishop  of 
Rome.  Thus  they  were  not  averse  to  increasing  the 
latter.  Theodore  Balsamon  (about  1169)  put  it  in  his 
collection.  Matthew  Blastares  (about  1335)  followed 
his  example,  and  it  is  found  in  many  other  places.  -It 
was  used  by  Greek  writers  and  even  by  the  emperors.^ 

The  legend  was  carried  to  the  second  degree  in  a 
popular  story  that  wdien  the  donation  was  made  an 
angel's  voice  was  heard  saying,  ''Alas,  alas,  this  day  has 
poison  been  dropt  into  the  Church  of  God."^    This  saga 

'  Cf.  Inferno  V.,  ii^ei  seq.;  De  Monarchia,  Bcok  iii.,  10. 

'  Cf.  Bollinger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  76-78.  It  also  entered  through  this 
channel  into  the  Russian  church.    Ibid.,  p.  120. 

'  Reginald  Pecock,  Repressor  of  overmuch  Blaming  of  the  Clergy 
(printed  Rerum  britannicarum  medii  aevi  scriptores  no.  19,  London  , 
i860),  p.  351. 


l8o  COXSTAXTIXE  AXD  CHRISTIAXITY  [igo 

evidently  grew  up  among  the  Ghibellines  of  Germany, 
who  saw  only  evil  in  the  donation.  Walther  von  der 
Vogelweide  gave  eloquent  expression  to  it :  King  Con- 
stantine,  he  gave  so  much — as  I  will  tell  you — to  the  see 
of  Rome,  spear,  cross  and  crown.  Then  the  angels 
cried,  'Alas!  alas!  alas!  Christendom  before  stood 
crowned  with  righteousness.  Now  is  poison  fallen  on 
her,  and  her  honey  turned  to  gall.  Woe  to  the  world 
henceforth  ! '  To-day  the  princes  all  live  in  honor,  only 
their  highest  one  languishes,  so  works  the  priests'  elec- 
tion. Be  that  denounced  to  thee,  sweet  God !  The 
priests  would  upset  laym.en's  rights  :  true  is  the  angel's 
prophecy."  ' 

It  was  maintained  by  some,  however,  that  it  was  the 
devil's  voice  that  was  heard,  trying  to  deceive  the  Church 
and  lamenting  his  own  defeat.  Since  the  event  which 
was  lamented  was  entirely  im.aginary  it  will  never  be 
possible  to  tell  which  writers  had  the  best  ears  for  dis- 
tinguishing sounds  from  the  other  world. 

The  part  that  the  Donation  of  Constantine  played  in 
the  Middle  Ages  has  been  strongly  emphasized  by  many 
modern  historians.  The  late  E.  M.  Hodgkin^  wrote 
that  "the  story  of  the  Donation  of  Constantine  fully  told 
would  almost  be  the  history  of  the  Middle  Ages.  *  *  * 
Under  Innocent  III,  Gregory  IX,  Boniface  III,  it  is 
constantly  appealed  to  in  support  of  their  pretensions  to 
rule  as  feudal  suzerains  over  Italy,  over  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  over  the  world.  For  three  centuries  after  this, 
the  canonists  take  the  Donation  as  the  basis  of  their  airy 
edifices." 

^  Pfeiffer-Bartsch  ed.,  85,  164.  Cited  in  Taylor,  Medieval  Mind,  ii, 
p.  35.  For  reference  to  the  saying  in  other  writers,  cf.  Dollinger,  op. 
cit.,  p.  112,  et  seg. 

^  Italy  and  her  Invaders,  vii,  p.  135  et  seg.  Quoted  in  part,  supra, 
p.  13. 


l8i]  THE  CONSTITUTUM  COXSTAXTINI  i8i 

This  far  overshoots  the  mark.  The  Donation  undoubt- 
edly influenced  the  formation  of  politico-ecclesiastical 
theories  and  furnished  ammunition  to  church  authorities 
for  argument.  But  even  in  the  realm  of  theory  and 
argument  it  was  not  decisive.  Supporters  of  secular 
authority  who  admitted  its  genuineness  extracted  its 
sting  by  many  ingenious  devices.  Some  maintained 
that  it  was  not  valid  because  Constantine  was  a  heretic, 
baptized  or  rebaptized  in  the  Arian  heresy.'  Some 
argued  that  it  was  invalid  because  the  empire  could  not 
be  alienated  without  the  consent  of  the  people,  which 
was  lacking.^  Some  limited  the  validity  of  the  gift  to 
Constantine's  own  reign.  Others  turned  the  Donation 
into  a  back-handed  blow  at  the  papacy  by  the  fact  that 
it  represented  papal  primacy  and  honor  as  derived,  not 
from  God,  but  from  the  emperor. ^  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  significant  that  the  first  pope  who  gained  a  clear 
conception  of  the  full  possibilities  of  the  papacy,  the  man 
whose  genius  and  soaring  aspirations  forecast  both  Inno- 
cent III  and  the  Vatican  Council  of  1870,  Gregory  VII, 

^  Cf.  Geroch  of  Reichersperg,  Expos,  in  Psalm.  Ixiv. 

^  Jacob  Almain,  of  Paris,  and  Peter  Dubois,  also  held  it  illegal.  John 
Quidort,  of  Paris  (1306)  took  a  similar  position.  Schard,  Syntagma 
variorum  autorum  de  jurisdictione  imperiali,  etc.  (Basle,  1566,  1609), 
p.  208  et  seq.,  publishes  extracts  from  many  medieval  writers.  Cf. 
also,  Dollinger,  op.  cit.,  105. 

^Wyclit:  "  Certum  videtur  ex  chronicis  quod  non  a  Christo  sed  a 
Caesare  Constantino  Romanus  episcopus  accepit  vel  usurpavit  potesta- 
tem."  Wilkins.  Concil.  iii.,  344.  So  also  the  Waldenses:  "  Nam 
error  Waldensium  fuit,  successoribus  apostolorum,  scilicet  papae  et 
praelatis  ecclesiasticis,  dominium  in  temporalibus  repugnare,  nec  eis 
licere  habere  divitias  temporales.  Unde  ecclesiam  Dei,  et  successores 
apostolorum  et  veros  praelatos  ecclesiae  Dei.  durasse  dicunt  tantum 
usque  ad  Sylvestrum  papam,  a  quo  donatione  facta  ecclesiae  per  Con- 
stantinum  impera^-orem,  dicunt  incepisse  Romanam  ecclesiam,  quae 
modo  secundum  ipsos  non  est  Dei  ecclesia."  John  of  Paris  (c.  1322) 
in  Schard,  op.  cit.,  p.  113. 


l82  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [182 

SO  far  as  we  know  made  no  use  whatever  of  the  sup- 
posed deed  of  Constantine. 

Moreover,  all  these  theories  of  canon  law  had  less  in- 
fluence upon  the  actual  course  of  events  and  growth  of 
institutions  than  is  often  supposed.  Claims  might  be 
supported  by  appeal  to  precedents  and  documents,  but 
these  were  seldom  their  real  source.  They  sprang  rather 
out  of  aggressive  ambition,  and  usually  met  that  m.easure 
of  success  which  their  promoters  had  material  or  moral 
power  to  enforce.  Claims  realized  embodied  themselves 
in  canon  law  and  political  theory.  Here,  as  usual,  theory 
generally  followed  after  fact  and  practical  program. 
The  Protestant  reformers  and  subsequent  Protestant 
writers,  holding  the  papacy  to  be  a  usurpation,  exagger- 
ated the  importance  of  extreme  papal  claims.  When 
they  attacked  it  on  moral  grounds  they  greatly  over- 
stated the  role  of  forged  docum.ents  in  attaining  the  ful- 
filment of  these  claims. 

"Historical  research  does  not  support  those  who  say 
that  the  dignity  of  the  papacy  was  only  acquired  in  the 
Middle  Ages  by  violent  usurpations,  bold  plundering 
and  forged  deeds.  Such  have  not  been  wanting,  indeed, 
but  they  have  never  been  determinative  nor  decisive. 
The  tree  was  of  such  sturdy  and  purposeful  growth  that 
we  can  say  that  even  without  forged  deeds,  bold  usurpa- 
tion, etc.,  its  development  would  scarcely  have  been  dif- 
ferent. Here,  as  usual,  the  actual  development  of  internal 
control  and  power  over  others  came  first,  and  then 
followed  theories,  legal  maxims,  occasionally  also  forger- 
ies, in  order  to  give  existing  power  a  biblical  and  histor- 
ical foundation.  These  theories  then,  later,  redounded 
to  the  advantage  of  the  existing  power,  but  they  did  not 
found  that  power.'" 

^  A.  Harnack,  in  a  lecture  delivered  in  the  Aula  of  Berlin  University 


THE  CONSTITUTUM  CONSTANTINI 


183 


Aside  from  the  manner  of  its  origin  and  from  its  influ- 
ence in  advancing  the  desires  of  the  papacy,  the  significance 
of  the  Donation  of  Constantine  lies  chiefly  in  the  illustra- 
tion it  affords  of  the  contrast  between  the  church  of  the 
eighth  and  ninth  century  and  that  of  the  fourth  and  fifth. 
In  the  earlier  days  Christian  imagination  created  an  im- 
age of  a  pious  emperor  converted  by  miracle  from  pagan- 
ism and  doing  everything  for  the  glory  of  God.  In  the 
later  time,  this  was  not  enough.  There  must  be  suprem- 
acy for  the  ecclesiastical  organization,  there  must  be 
lands,  government,  and  an  imperial  crown  to  dispose  of 
for  the  bishop  of  Rome.  This  had  become  by  the  eighth 
century  one  of  the  aspirations  of  medieval  Christianity. 
''The  tendency  of  the  whole  age,  as  expressed  in  the 
forgery,  ran  toward  wedding  the  spiritual  power  to 
worldly  advantages,  rights,  and  honors."' 

in  191 1,  and  published  in  his  ''Aus  Wissenschaft  und  Leben  "  (1911), 
vol.  i,  p.  214.  The  same  view  is  held  by  Taylor,  Medieval  Mind,  ii, 
273-274. 

'  Hartmann,  Geschichte  Italiens  im  Mittelalter,  Bd.  ii,  Hfte.  ii 
(Gotha,  1903),  p.  225. 


CHAPTER  II 


EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY 

I.  Stages  of  Criticism 

The  work  of  historical  criticism  in  showing  up  the 
Donation  of  Constantine  is  one  of  the  most  interesting 
chapters  in  the  intellectual  development  of  Europe.  In 
mere  bulk  it  looms  very  large,  larger  even  than  the  im- 
portance of  the  document  itself  would  seem  to  warrant  ; 
many  books,  and  short  general  discussions  without  end. 
The  intellectual  class  in  Europe  as  well  as  the  unedu- 
cated, passed  through  a  long  stage  of  uncritical  accept- 
ance of  it.  Europe,  as  a  whole,  held  to  it  in  the  face 
of  the  sharp,  though  limited  and  ineffectual,  criticism 
it  received  in  the  twelfth  century.  This  criticism  was 
renewed  and  enlarged  in  the  fourteenth  century.  But  it 
was  only  the  attack  made  upon  it  in  the  renaissance  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  culminating  in  Valla's  work,  that 
definitely  exposed  the  forgery.  The  Protestant  contro- 
versy concerning  it,  and  the  modern  scientific,  historical 
criticism  of  the  last  fifty  years,  make  up  the  last  chapters 
in  its  study. 

2.  Criticism  of  the   Donation^^  previous  to  the  Fifteenth 

Century 

The  general  acceptance  of  the  document  by  the  Middle 
Ages,  in  most  cases  without  question  of  its  genuineness, 
illustrates  as  much  as  any  one  thing  could,  the  relative 
lack  of  the  historical,  scientific  spirit  in  that  stage  of 
European  thought.  Consider  what  the  Germans  call  the 
184  [184 


185]  EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY  185 

shrieking  inconsistencies  of  the  whole  forgery;  Con- 
stantine  giving  the  Roman  see  primacy  over  that  of 
Constantinople,  before  that  city  was  founded,  even  ac- 
cording to  the  account  in  the  Sylvester  Legend  itself, 
the  application  of  such  terms  as  satraps  to  Roman 
officials,  the  purported  transfer  of  the  government  of 
Italy  to  the  pope  in  the  face  of  the  actual  continuation 
of  imperial  rule  without  any  reference  to  papal  authority 
and  without  any  records  of  such  a  change.  Consider 
also  that  the  Middle  Ages  all  the  time  possessed,  in 
Jerome,  the  Historia  Tripartita^  and  elsewhere,  ma- 
terial for  refuting  the  forgery  and  the  whole  story  of 
Constantine's  conversion  through  cure  of  leprosy,  and 
for  getting  at  the  approximate  facts  about  Constantine 
and  Sylvester.  Surely  we  have  here  an  illustration  of 
the  fact  that  truth  does  not  always  prevail.  Its  preva- 
lence, even  in  the  long  run  of  centuries,  depends  on 
whether  men  really  seek  for  it,  and  on  what  training  and 
facilities  they  have  in  ascertaining  it  and  its  traces.  In 
the  absence  of  sound  historical  criticism,  in  the  face  of  a 
strong  tendency  to  harmonize  inconsistencies,  historical 
truth  gives  way  in  a  single  generation  to  wild  and  absurd 
legends. 

But  the  so-called  Middle  Ages  were  not  altogether 
uncritical.  Our  first  notice  of  an  attack  comes  in  a 
document  whose  genuineness  is  open  to  serious  doubt. 
If  wx  may  believe  this.  Otto  III,  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
century,  in  a  grant  to  Sylvester  II,  stigmatized  the  Do- 
nation of  Constantine  as  a  fiction.'    But  the  twelfth 

Haec  sunt  enim  commenta  ab  illi  ipsis  inventa,  quibus  Joanness 
diaconus,  cognomento  digitorum  mutius  Cmutilus)  praeceptum  aureis 
litteris  scripsit,  sub  titulo  magni  Constantini  Icnga  mendacii  tempora 
finxit.  *  *  ■'^  "  Spretis  ergo  commenticiis  praeceptis  et  imaginarii 
scriptis,  ex  nostra  liberalitate  sancto  Petro  donamus  quae  nostra  sunt, 
non  sibi  quae  sua  sunt  veluti  nostra  conferimus."  (  Baronius  Ann.  1191, 
No.  57). 


1 86  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [i86 

century  brought  on  a  fire  of  criticism.  In  the  pontifi- 
cate of  Paschal  II,  in  1104  or  1105,  the  Donation  was 
used  as  authority  by  some  Roman  nobles  for  their  pos- 
session, under  the  papacy,  of  a  certain  castle.  Their 
opponents,  the  monks  of  a  Sabine  Benedictine  monastery, 
Farfa,  contested  that  at  most  the  document  could  give 
only  spiritual  power,  that  the  pope  had  no  earthly  author- 
ity such  as  was  claimed,  and  that  if  Constantine  had 
really  made  any  such  grant  of  land  the  popes  would  not 
afterwards  have  sought  any  land  for  buildings,  or  con- 
firmation of  the  emperor's  name,  as  they  did.' 

Some  fifty  years  later  Wetzel,  of  the  party  of  Arnold 
of  Brescia,  discredited  the  whole  legend  of  Sylvester  and 
the  Donation.  The  Arnoldists  were  naturally  led  by 
their  peculiar  views  of  the  papacy  to  level  their  guns 
against  this  buttress  of  its  temporal  power.  Wetzel's 
contention  was  that  Constantine  was  already  a  Christian 
before  he  met  Sylvester.  In  support  of  this  he  cited  the 
Historia  Tripa^'tita  as  well  as  an  apocryphal  document, 
which  he  found  in  the  pseudo-Isidore  and  in  Gratian,  in 
which  Miltiades  or  Melchiades,  the  predecessor  of  Syl- 
vester, refers  to  Constantine's  great  munificence  to  the 
Roman  Church. Looking  to  Emperor  Frederic  I  for 
cooperation  against  the  political  power  of  tlie  pope, 
Wetzel  wrote  (1152)  that  the  lying  and  heretical  fable 
was  so  thoroughly  exposed  that  scholars  could  not  de- 
fend it  before  the  uneducated,  and  that  the  pope  and 

'  Cf.  Dollinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  94;  Mancini,  Lorenzo  Valla,  pp.  145,  146. 
For  this  monastery,  cf.  Kehr,  Regesta  Pontificum  Romanorum  :  Italia 
Pontificia,  vol.  ii,  Latium,  pp.  57-69.  Cf.  also  Historiae  Farfens.  in 
Pertz,  M.  G.  H.  xiii,  571  ;  the  Registrum  of  Farfa  published  by  J. 
Georgi  and  U.  Balzani ;  and  Gregorius  Catinensis  in  Scriptores  Rerutn 
Italicarum,  vol.  ii,  part  ii,  p.  637. 

^Printed  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  col.  566  ei  seq. 


iSy-j  EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY  187 

cardinals  hardly  showed  themselves  for  shame/  Un- 
fortunately for  the  Arnoldists,  however,  the  emperor  had 
as  little  use  for  them  as  did  the  pope.  Wetzel  failed  to 
produce  any  effect  upon  him,  and  in  the  overthrow  of 
the  Arnoldists,  their  arguments,  also,  for  all  practical 
purposes,  fell  to  the  ground/ 

Echoes  of  this  and  other  attacks,  however,  continued 
to  reverberate  through  Europe.  Gottfried  of  Bamberg 
in  his  Pantheon,  dedicated  to  Urban  III  (in  1186)  treats 
of  the  matter  in  the  form  of  a  debate  between  a  papist 
who  defends  the  Donation  on  the  ground  that  God  would 
not  permit  errors  on  such  weighty  points,  and  an  im- 
perialist who  cited  the  continuance  of  imperial  rule  and 
the  division  of  the  whole  empire  between  Constantine's 
sons.  Leopold  of  Bebenburg  shortly  after  made  the 
same  point  as  this  hypothetical  Ghibelline.  ^  But  neither 
Gottfried  or  Leopold  gave  his  own  conclusion. 

Marsiglio  of  Padua,  early  in  the  fourteenth  century,  is 
also  not  quite  clear  about  the  matter.  He  speaks  of  the 
document  as  though  he  had  no  faith  in  it,  but  welcomes 
it  as  proving  that  the  pope's  worldly  pomp  and  claims  of 
universal  power  came  not  from  Christ,  but  from  the  em- 
peror. For  this  last  proposition  he  cites  no  less  author- 
ity than  St.  Bernard  who  declared  that  the  popes  in 
their  worldly  pomp  were  successors  of  Constantine,  not 
of  St.  Peter.  ^    Marsiglo's  attitude  was  not  an  uncommon 

'  Martene  and  Durand,  Amplissima  collectio  veternm  scriptorum,  ii 
(1724),  556,  epist.  384. 

*  C7.  Dollinger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  94-95.  He  is  inclined  elsewhere  to  place 
the  historical  criticism  of  the  Donation  in  the  twelfth  century  on  a 
higher  level  than  that  of  the  fifteenth. 

'Schard,  op.  cit.,  p.  391. 
Defensor  pads,  Dictio  II.,  cap.  ii.    Reprinted  in  Schard,  op.  cit. 
Marsiglio's  "  Tractatus  de  translatione  imperii."  also  touches  upon 
Constantine's  removal  to  the  East  and  his  supposed  grant  to  the  Pope. 
Cf.  extract  in  Schard,  op.  cit.,  pp.  154-156. 


l88  CONSTAXTIXE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [i88 

one  in  his  time,  he  merely  gave  it  the  increased,  weight 
of  his  authority.  Thereafter,  he  seems  to  have  been  a 
model  whom  other  writers  copied,  sometimes  almost 
verbally  in  their  statement  of  the  case. ' 

The  contest  in  France  against  papal  control  kept  the 
question  from  entirely  dying  out  for  nearly  a  hundred 
years  longer.  It  remained  for  the  time  of  the  Renais- 
sance, however,  to  effectively  establish  the  fact  that  the 
Donation  was  a  forgery  unworthy  of  any  credence. 
Early  writers  had  the  acumen  to  arrive  at  or  near  this 
conclusion,  but  not  until  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury was  the  equipment  of  historical  critics  and  the  state 
of  public  opinion  such  as  to  drive  in  and  fasten  down 
this  achievement  of  awakening  thought. 

3.  The  Contest  Against  the  Papacy  in  the  Fifteenth  Cen- 
tury. Cusanus'  Criticism  of  the Donation'' 
For  more  than  a  hundred  years,  that  is,  during  the 
so-called  Babylonian  Captivity  of  the  papacy,  and  the  era 
of  reforming  councils,  the  papacy  had  been  under  fire. 
The  rising  sentiment  of  nationality,  especially  in  north- 
ern Europe,  had  been  seeking  intermittently  to  curb  the 
financial  and  the  political  ambitions  of  the  Roman  See. 
Reformers  had  been  seeking  for  some  way  of  ending  and 
of  preventing  scandals  in  the  church  due  to  the  confusion 
into  which  the  Roman  See  had  fallen.  They  had  studied 
the  history  of  the  church,  they  had  examined,  in  ancient 
authors,  the  historical  grounds  upon  which  the  claims  of 
the  papacy  rested.  They  had  come  to  the  council  of  Con- 
stance, not  only  with  the  purpose  of  ending  the  Great 
Schism,  but  wdth  ideas  about  the  reorganization  of 
ecclesiastical  government  and  revising  the  relations  of 

*  C/.  Radulphus  (Pandulfus,  or  Landulph)  de  Columna,  in  his  "  de 
translatione  imperii,"  dated  by  Schard,  1324  A.  D.,  and  printed  by 
him,  op.  cit.,  p.  161. 


EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY 


church  and  state.  The  former  purpose  had  been  accom- 
plished at  Constance,  but  the  realization  of  the  latter, 
though  to  some  extent  accepted  in  principle  there,  had 
been  postponed. 

The  Council  of  Basle,  assembled  in  1431,  was  the 
agency  through  which  the  discontented  element  sought 
to  effect  the  desired  changes  and  reorganization.  A 
strong  and  able  group  there  contended  vigorously  for 
a  system  of  conciliar  government  for  the  church,  instead 
of  papal  absolutism.  When  the  pope,  Eugenius  IV, 
ordered  the  dissolution  of  the  council,  the  latter  bore 
itself  resolutely,  reasserted  the  principles  of  Constance, 
and  continued  its  work. 

Among  the  leaders  in  the  championship  of  the  council 
was  Nicholas  of  Cues,  better  known  as  Nicholas  of 
Cusa,  or  Cusanus  (1401-1461),  deacon  of  St.  Florinus  of 
Coblenz.  Educated  in  the  school  of  the  Brethren  of  the 
Common  Life  at  Deventer,  and  later  at  the  University  of 
Padua,  he  was  both  a  pious  churchman  and  one  of  the 
greatest,  if  not  the  greatest,  ecclesiastical  scholar  of  his 
generation.  He  wrote  (1433)  ^oi*  the  direction  of  the 
council,  and  in  justification  of  its  platform,  a  work  which 
he  called  " De  concordantia  catholica,^'  and  which  pre- 
sented "the  ideal  of  the  reforming  party,  a  united  Church 
reformed  in  soul  and  body,  in  priesthood  and  laity,  by 
the  action  of  a  Council  which  should  represent  on  earth 
the  eternal  unity  of  Heaven."  ' 

Cusanus  later  left  the  Council  of  Basle,  as  Cardinal 
Cesarini  and  others  did,  discouraged  at  the  outcome  of 
events  and  at  the  extremes  to  which  the  council  went, 

^  M.  Creighton,  A  History  of  the  Papacy  during  the  Period  of  the 
Reformation,  vol.  ii  (1882),  p.  232.  For  an  appreciation  of  Nicholas 
of  Cusa,  cf.  Janssen,  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  A^es,  Eng.  trans.  (London,  1908)  i,  2-5. 


igo  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [igo 

and  labored  to  restore  the  Papal  power  which  once  he 
had  striven  to  upset."  '  He  became  one  of  the  most  ef- 
fective representatives  of  Eugenius  in  the  restoration  of 
papal  authority  and  influence.  At  the  Diet  of  Mainz, 
in  1439,  he  advised  that  only  part  of  the  Basle  decrees  be 
accepted  again  in  1441,  and  ably  championed  the  cause 
of  the  pope  against  that  of  the  council.''  He  retained, 
however,  at  least  many  of  his  liberal  ideas,  and  later  gave 
expression  to  them  in  his  remarkable  work,  De  pace 
sen  Concorda7itia  Fidei  (1453),  a  most  notable  appeal 
for  religious  liberty. ^ 

Among  the  foundations  of  papal  power  and  claims 
which  Cusanus  examined  in  his  De  concordantia  catho- 
Itca,''  was  the  Donation  of  Constantine.  His  work  was 
used  as  a  sort  of  text-book  by  the  council :  this  section 
of  it  was  presented,  November  7,  1433,  at  the  fourteenth 
session.  It  fully  maintains  the  high  standard  of  the  rest 
of  the  work,  and  all  things  considered,  is  probably  the 
most  notable  treatment  ever  given  the  ''Donation."^ 
Valla's  treatise  is  longer,  more  rhetorical,  and  much 
better  known ;  but  Valla  in  all  probability  had  this  work 
to  guide  him. 

He  called  attention  to  the  absence  of  any  reference  to 
the  transaction  or  the  document  in  early  writings,  which 
he  said  he  had  searched  thoroughly  with  this  in  mind. 
Certain  histories  tell  of  Constantine  being  baptized  by 
Sylvester,  and  of  presents  given  the  Church  by  the  for- 
mer, but  none  speak  of  any  transfer  of  temporal  power. 

^M.  Creighton,  op.  cit,.  p.  232. 

'  For  a  full  account  of  the  Council  of  Basle  and  a  judicious  statement 
of  Cusanus'  share  in  it,  cf.  Creighton,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  chaps,  iv-x. 

^  Cf.  G.  L.  Burr:  "  Anent  the  Middle  Ages,"  in  American  His- 
torical Review,  xviii,  710-713. 

*For  text  of  Cusanus'  discussion,  cf.  infra,  pp.  237-241. 


igi]  EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY  igi 

That  this  last  resided  in  the  emperor  was  recognized  by 
the  popes  after  Sylvester.  It  was  Pippin,  and  later 
Charlemagne,  who  conferred  Italian  states  upon  the 
papacy.  Cusa  cites  passages  in  papal  correspondence 
showing  that  imperial  jurisdiction  prevailed  in  Italy  long 
after  this  grant  to  the  pope  was  supposed  to  have  been 
made.  He  makes  a  critical  comparison  of  the  legends 
of  the  Roman  baptism  with  Jerome's  statements  and  his- 
torical facts.  He  shows  that  the  Donation  was  not  in 
the  original  collection  of  canon  laws  made  by  Gratian, 
but  was  added  later  under  ''Palea."  His  conclusion  is 
that  the  Donation  is  a  more  than  doubtful  argument  for 
papal  power,  that  it  is  really  worse  than  nothing. 

4.  Valla  s  Treatise 
Lorenzo  Valla,  however,  made  the  most  decisive  on- 
slaught upon  the  Donation,  and  the  most  famous.  ^ 
Nicholas  of  Cusa  had  written  about  it  as  one  of  many 
questions,  in  the  tone  of  scholarly  investigation.  Valla 
made  an  impassioned  oratorical  denunciation  which  sin- 
gled it  out  as  a  crime  against  European  civilization.  The 
fame  of  the  author,  the  power  of  his  appeal,  and  ensuing 
contests  against  the  papacy  combined  to  connect  the  ex- 
posure of  the  forgery  almost  entirely  with  the  latter 
name. 

Valla  embodied  to  a  superlative  degree  most  of  the 
merits,  and  some  of  the  faults,  of  the  scholarship  of  the 
Renaissance.  To  find  his  closest  analogy  one  must  study 
the  Italian  condottieri,  highly  skilled,  keen,  reckless  sol- 
diers of  fortune.    He  was  an  intellectual  condottiere^  well 

^The  best  life  of  Valla  is  in  Italian,  G.  Mancini;  Vita  di  Lorenzo 
Valla,  Firenze  1891.  A  good  account,  with  many  of  Valla's  letters,  is 
that  of  Earozzi  e  Sabbadini,  Studi  sul  Panormita  e  sul  Valla,  publica- 
zioni  del  R.  instituto  di  studi  supericri  practici  e  di  perfezionamento  in 
Firenze,  sezione  di  filosofia  e  filologia  (1891),  pp.  49-265. 


192  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [192 

equipped  for  literary  combats,  now  fighting  as  a  free 
lance  for  interests  that  appealed  to  him,  now  making 
peace  with  the  enemy  and  serving  him  for  pay.  Indeed 
the  real  enemy  was  not  injustice.  It  was  not  even  ignor- 
ance, though  he  waged  incessant  warfare  against  it.  The 
bitterest  enemy  of  the  Italian  humanist  was  most  likely 
to  be  his  fellow  condottiere.  Even  his  warmest  friend 
was  apt  to  become  his  competitor  and  his  rival.  An  at- 
tack upon  the  purity  of  one's  Latinity,  and  Valla  was 
always  making  them, '  was  sure  to  provoke  an  invective 
in  which  the  honor  of  one's  mother,  one's  character  and 
his  private  conduct  were  assailed  with  accusations  as 
scandalous  as  they  were  unfounded. Popes  at  Rome 
could  more  easily  forgive  attacks  upon  their  temporal 
power,  than  an  Italian  humanist  a  correction  in  his  gram- 
mar. 

But  in  all  these  clouds  of  dust  there  was  many  a  flash 
of  light.  Valla,  especially,  had  genuine  critical  insight 
and  was  far  from  lacking  scientific  love  of  truth.  Eras- 
mus valued  highly  his  grammatical  notes  on  the  New 
Testament  and  his  critical  works  on  the  Latin  language. 

Where  is  the  man,"  he  wrote,  "whose  heart  is  so  nar- 

^  Cf.  Poggio's  epigram: 

"Nunc  postquam  Manes  defunctus  Valla  petivit, 
Non  audet  Pluto  verba  Latina  loqui, 
Juppiter  hunc  superis  dignatus  honore  fuisset 
Censorem  linguae  sed  timet  ipse  suae." 

"  Since  Valla  went  the  trembling  Shades  to  seek 
No  word  of  Latin  Pluto  dares  to  speak. 
Jove  fears  to  call  him  to  the  blest  abodes 
Lest  carping  censure  vex  the  blameless  gods." 

— Translation  in  Nichols,  Epistles  of  Erasmus,  p.  69. 
2  C/.  Valla's  literary  feuds  with  Fazzio,  Antonio  da  Ro,  Antonio  Pan- 
ormita,  Poggio  and  Benedictus  Morandus,  in  the  works  of  Valla  and 
his  opponents.    For  summary  cf.  Nisard:  Les  Gladiateurs  de  la  Re- 
publigite  des  Lettres,  vol.  i  (Paris,  i860). 


193] 


EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY 


193 


rowed  by  jealousy,  as  not  to  have  the  highest  praise  for 
Valla,  a  man  who  with  so  much  energy,  zeal  and  labor, 
refuted  the  stupidities  of  the  barbarians,  saved  half-buried 
letters  from  extinction,  restored  Italy  to  her  ancient 
splendor  of  eloquence,  and  forced  even  the  learned  to 
express  themselves  henceforth  with  more  circumspec- 
tion." '  His  criticism  of  institutions  and  ethics  was  no 
less  keen,  even  if  sometimes  marked  by  a  recklessness 
and  lack  of  balance  matched  only  by  careful  concealment 
of  his  personal  convictions.  There  are  passages  in  his 
writings  which  break  not  only  with  medieval  but  with 
Christian  morals  as  a  whole.  These,  however,  were 
carefully  put  in  the  mouths  of  other  speakers.  He  fore- 
stalled Machiavelli's  political  theories  in  dismissing 
Dante's  conception  of  the  Empire  as  the  head  of  civil 
power,  in  branding  the  papacy  as  the  cause  of  disunion 
in  Italy,  and  in  dignifying  the  modern  state. 

Such  was  the  remarkable  man  who,  in  1440,  as  royal 
secretary  of  Alfonso  at  Naples,  wrote  the  treatise  De 
falso  credita  et  ementita  Constanthii  Donatione.^  He 
was  led  to  compose  the  treatise,  not  only  by  the  echoes 
of  the  council  of  Basle  as  they  reverberated  throughout 
Europe,  but  by  the  local  situation  in  Italy. 

Alfonso  of  Aragon  had  claimed  the  Neapolitan  crown 

^Cf.  Nichols,  Epistles  of  Erasmus,  p.  70. 

The  theory  that  he  wrote  it  at  a  later  time  and  finished  it  in  the 
papal  archives  was  a  baseless  invention  of  a  later  invective  against  him, 
as  was  the  story  that  he  had  to  flee  from  Rome  on  account  of  it  to  save 
his  life.  It  apparently  never  caused  him  more  than  a  temporary  em- 
barrassment later,  and  a  feeble  apology  when  he  applied  for  a  position 
at  the  papal  court.  Cf.  Mancini,  op.  cit.  index  under  Valla,  and  Valla's 
letter  in  Barrozi  e  Sabbadini,  op.  cit,  pp.  94-96.  The  treatise  is  printed 
in  Valla's  Opera,  and  in  many  separate  editions.  It  is  printed  with  a 
long  and  uncritical,  polemical  introduction  and  French  translation  by 
Bonneau,  and  with  an  Italian  translation  by  G.  Vincenti.  Cf.  infra, 
Bibliography,  under  Valla. 


194 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[194 


Upon  the  death  of  Giovanna  II  in  1435,  on  the  ground  of 
his  having  been  adopted  heir  by  her,  as  well  as  of  the 
older  Aragonese  pretensions.  Pope  Eugenius,  however, 
claimed  the  kingdom  of  Naples  as  a  papal  fief  and  op- 
posed Alfonso.  The  latter  was  captured  by  the  victor- 
ious fleet  of  the  Genoese,  who  were  looking  after  their 
commercial  interests,  off  the  island  of  Ponza,  and  held 
prisoner  for  a  while  by  Filippo  Maria  Visconti,  at  Milan, 
which  then  controlled  Genoa,  but  he  succeeded  in  form- 
ing an  alliance  with  Filippo  Maria  and  thus  finally  got 
control  in  Naples.  The  pope,  however,  headed  a  league 
embracing  Florence,  Venice  and  Genoa  (after  the  revolt 
from  Milan)  and  continued  the  fight  against  Alfonso. 
It  was  not  until  1442  that  the  latter  was  able  to  firmly 
establish  himself  at  Naples.  The  bitterness  of  his  party 
against  Eugenius  was  naturally  great,  and  was  increased 
by  the  pope's  entrusting  his  interests  and  the  conduct  of 
the  war  to  the  notoriously  cruel  Cardinal  Vitteleschi. 
Alfonso  fought  the  pope,  not  only  with  an  army,  but 
with  literary  forces  as  well.  He  strongly  supported  the 
faction  hostile  to  the  papacy  at  Basle,  and  sought  in 
general  to  undermine  the  moral  and  legal  foundation  of 
the  papal  power.  For  this  latter  purpose  his  secretary, 
Valla,  was  an  incomparable  agent.  He  contributed  to 
his  patron's  warfare  a  bitter  arraignment  of  the  temporal 
power  of  the  papacy,  cleverly  taking  as  his  text  the  forg- 
ery of  the  Donation  of  Constantine.' 

Writers  who  have  approached  this  work  through  a 
study  of  Valla,  or  from  a  Protestant  point  of  view,  have 

'  For  the  situation  in  Italian  politics  v*^hich  called  forth  Valla's  treatise, 
cf.  Creighton,  op.  ciL,  ii,  170-172,  228;  Barrozi,  in  Barozzi  e.  Sabbadini, 
op.  ciL.  222-265;  Mancini,  Vita  di  Lorenzo  Valla,  137-145;  Gregoro- 
vius,  Rome  in  the  Middle  Ages  (Eng.  trans,  from  the  fourth  German 
ed.),  vol.  vii,  pp.  62-64,  84-85. 


ic;-]  EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY  ig- 

generally  given  it  extravagant  praise/  while  many,  im- 
patient of  its  rhetorical  form,  or  reading  only  the  ora- 
torical opening,  have  seen  little  of  value  in  it.^  In  truth 
the  work  is  not  as  original  as  has  often  been  assumed. 
Valla  was  a  friend  and  admirer  of  Nicholas  of  Cusa,^  and 
there  is  reason  for  thinking  that  much  of  his  historical 
criticism  is  based  on  Nicholas'  earlier  work.  The  crit- 
icism of  the  language  and  vocabulary  of  the  Constitutum 
Constantini,  however,  which  is  a  considerable  part  of  the 
treatise,  must  have  been  largely  a  product  of  Valla's  own 
literary  studies.  Errors  such  as  the  use  of  the  apocry- 
phal letter  of  ]\Ielchiades  to  overthrow  the  apocryphal 
Donation,  the  belief  drawn  through  secondary  sources 
fromx  Eusebius'  Church  History  that  Constantine  was 
always  a  Christian,  failure  to  use  Eusebius'  Life  of  Con- 
stantine or  even  Jerome's  statement  of  the  Nicomedian 
baptism,  were  only  to  be  expected  of  one  writing  in  the 
fifteenth  century.  But  Valla  used  old  Roman  coins 
which  he  had  in  his  own  possession  as  historical  evi- 
dence, and  his  reasoning  was  usually  sound  and  his 
method  of  approach  skilfully  chosen.  His  work  is  not 
unworthy  to  stand  as  one  of  the  landmarks  in  the  rise 
of  historical  criticism.. 

The  point  of  Valla's  treatise  is  that  the  Donation  is  a 
forgery,  and  that  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope  is  in 
any  case  bad  and  should  be  abolished.  He  makes  no 
attempt  to  ascertain  the  date  or  circumstances  of  the 

g.  Strauss,  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  (1877)  p.  2Ci;  Gieseler,  Text-book 
of  Church  History  (New  York,  1863),  iii,  p.  473,  n.  2;  Wolff,  Lo7'enzo 
Valla,  pp.  60,  79;  Hodgkin,  Italy  and  her  Invaders  (2nd  ed.),  vii,  154; 
Gregorovius,  Rome  ifi  the  Middle  Ages  (3rd  ed.),  vii,  pp.  535,  571-573. 

^E.g.  Dollinger,  ed.  Yiitdr'ich.,  Papstfabeln ,  p.  118;  Nisard.  op.cit.y 
i,  p.  279  et  passim. 

^  Cf.  letters  in  Barozzi  e  Sabbadini.  op.  cit.,  pp.  115.  128. 


1 96  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [196 

forgery,  as  indeed  no  one  does  for  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  him.  His  proof  that  the  Donation  was  a  for- 
gery is  varied  both  in  form  and  in  value.  He  begins 
with  a  rather  clever  discussion  of  the  improbability  of 
the  whole  thing,  showing  how  Constantine  could  not 
have  made  the  donation  and  how,  if  it  had  been  made, 
Sylvester  would  have  refused  it  in  a  speech  expatiating 
on  the  incompatibility  of  the  temporal  power  with 
the  spiritual.  He  finds  no  trace  of  any  transfer  or 
change  of  officials;  imperial  rule  continued  in  the  west 
as  before  the  supposed  grant.  The  best  historians, 
Eusebius  and  Rufinus,  say  that  Constantine  was  a 
Christian  before  Sylvester's  pontificate,  and  a  letter  of 
Melchiades  ^  clearly  proves  it.  Moreover,  the  Donation 
is  not  in  the  body  of  canon  law,  it  was  added  under 
the  Palea.  The  whole  pseudo-Gelasian  literature  and 
the  Vita  (or  Gesta)  Sylvestri  is  discredited.  Valla  used 
effectively  the  argument  from  the  barbarous  and  in- 
correct language  of  the  document  and  inconsistencies 
in  its  account  of  events.  Not  having  adequate  Roman 
calendars  or  Fasti  he  failed  to  detect  the  error  in 
dating.  He  accepted  the  Eusebian  authorship  of  the 
Vita  Sylvestri,  but  took  this  as  discrediting  it,  because 
Greeks  were  proverbial  liars ;  the  Vita  therefore  is  not 
apocryphal,  but  lying  !  As  for  confirmation  and  accept- 
ance of  the  Donation  as  genuine  by  the  rulers  of  the 
Holy  Empire,  Valla  held  these  emperors  to  be  creatures 
of  the  papacy.  He  was  even  less  imperialist  than  papist. 
He  ends  as  he  began,  with  an  attack  upon  the  whole 
system  of  papal  government  in  civil  affairs. 

This  treatise,  written  before  printing  was  developed, 
did  not  at  first  receive  a  wide  circulation.    Valla  himself 


^  Which,  however,  is  a  palpable  forgery. 


197] 


EXPOSURE  OP  THE  PORGERY 


197 


esteemed  it  as  one  of  his  best  and  greatest  works  and 
circulated  it  privately  among  his  friends.'  Poggio,  how- 
ever, in  his  bitter  invectives  against  Valla,  did  not  men- 
tion this  treatise,  and  apparently  did  not  know  of  it.  In 
a  defence  of  himself  to  Eugenius  IV,  made  in  the  effort 
to  obtain  a  position  at  Rome,  Valla  excused  himself  from 
many  damaging  charges  of  heresy,  but  said  nothing 
about  the  attack  on  the  Donation,  probably  because  it 
had  not  become  well  enough  known  to  occasion  contro- 
versy and  call  for  defence.^  He  had  had  occasion  to  re- 
fer to  it,  though,  in  writing  to  influential  friends  at 
Rome,  and  to  apologize  for  it.  He  protested  his  full 
devotion  to  the  Holy  See  and  attributed  this  indiscre- 
tion to  bad  advice  as  well  as  to  his  regrettable  passion 
for  controversy  and  fame.^  In  asking,  however,  in  1443, 
for  the  friendly  influence  of  Cardinal  Ludovico  Scarampo 
in  getting  him  back  to  Rome,  he  justified  his  work  as 
solely  an  attempt  to  ascertain  and  establish  the  truth.'* 

^  E.  g.  letter  to  Giiarino,  from  Naples,  Nov.,  1443:  *  ♦  ♦  mittam  ego 
tibi  vicissim  meam  oration  em,  quae  etiam  ipsa  prope  tota  in  contentione 
versatur:  "  de  false  credita  et  ementita  donatione  Constantini."  Dices: 
"  pacisci  mecum  vis."  Minimi:  "  sed  nisi  orationem  meam  non 
videris,  mittendam  esse  non  piito  tibi.  Rescribes  igitur  an  Pliniana 
Laurentianaque  oratio  in  manus  tuas  venerit.  Si  utroque,  tu  Plinianam 
ad  me  mittes;  si  neutra,  ego  ad  te  meam  Laurentianam  mittam;  si 
Laurentiana,  neuter  ad  alterium  aliquam  orationem  mittet."  In 
Barozzi  e  Sabbadini,  op.  cit  ,  p.  93 

Valla  also  sent  a  copy  to  Aurispa,  writing  "  qua  nihil  magis  oratorium 
scripsi."  In  Epistolae  niundi  procerum  "  Calso  referred  to  as  Epis- 
tolae  prhicipum) ,  Venice,  1574,  p.  361,  cf.  also  pp.  375,  346. 

In  1443  he  also  wrote  to  Cardinal  Ludovico  Scarampo,  in  the  letter 
quoted  below,  "  Opus  meum  [de  Constantini  donatione]  ccnditum  edi- 
tumque  est,  quod  emendare  aut  supprimere  nec  possem  si  deberem,  nec 
deberem  si  possem.''    Barrozzi  e  Sabbadini,  op.  cit.,  p.  96. 
Opera,  p.  795. 

^  Cf.  letter  to  Landriana,  c.  1445,  cited  by  Gregorovius,  Rome  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  vii,  p.  574,  and  Nisard,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  279. 

At  cur  '  de  Constantini  donatione  '  composui?    Kcc  est  quod  pur- 


198 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


His  mingled  protestations  of  innocence  and  veiled 
hints  that  more  might  be  said  than  he  had  said  in  his 
treatise,  produced  no  results  during  the  pontificate  of 
Eugenius  IV.  Nicholas  V,  however,  finally  did  appoint 
him  to  an  apostolic  secretaryship  in  1448  and  gave  him 
many  marks  of  favor,  especially  in  connection  with  his 
translations  of  Greek  authors.  How  much  the  pope  was 
influenced  in  this  by  Valla's  urgency,  by  the  policy  of 
silencing  an  enemy  by  taking  him.  into  the  papal  camp, 
or  by  genuine  interest  in  Valla's  scholarly  work,  it  is 
impossible  to  tell.  I  am  inclined,  however,  to  think  that 
the  last  was  the  main  reason  for  Nicholas'  action. 

Valla's  treatise,  however,  did  not  remain  without  in- 

gare  habeam,  ut  quod  nonnulli  obtrectent  mihi  et  quasi  crimen  intendant. 
Id  ego  tantum  abest  ut  malivolenlia  fecerim,  ut  summopere  optassem 
sub  alio  pontifice  necesse  mihi  fuisse  id  facere,  ncn  sub  Eugenio  [the 
reigning  pope].  Neque  vero  attinet  hoc  tempore  libelli  mei  causam 
defendere  nisi  Gamalielis  verbis,  '  Si  est  ex  hominibus  consilium  hoc 
aut  opus,  dissolvetur;  sin  autemexdeo,  non  poteritis  dissolvere.'  Opus 
meum  conditum  editumque  est;  quod  emendare  aut  supprimere  nec 
possem  si  deberem,  nec  deberem  si  possem.  Ipsa  rei  Veritas  se  tuebi- 
tur  aut  ipsa  falsitas  se  coarguet.  Alii  de  illo  judices  arbitrique  sunt, 
non  ego.  Si  male  locutus  sum,  testimonium  perhibebunt  de  malo;  sin 
bene,  non  caedent  me  nervisaequi  judices.  Sedopus  illud  in  suaquaeso 
causa  quiescere  sinamus.  Hoc  tantum  consideres  velim,  non  odiopapae 
adductum,  sed  veritatis  sed  religionis  sed  cujusdam  gloriae  et  famae 
gratia  motum,  ut  quod  nemo  sciret  id  ego  scisse  solus  viderer.  Multum 
etiam  nocere  potuissem,  si  alieno  animo  fuissem  in  rebus  quae  mentem 
animumque  magis  sollicitant.  Nan  quod  feci,  hoc  non  modo  adpudorem 
praesentium,  sed  mortuorum  etiam  ac  futurorum  pertinet;  qui  enim 
nemini  parcit,  nullum  laedit.  Verum  cum  non  minus  prodesse  in  pos- 
terum  possim  quam  uno  libello  offendi,  per  ego  te  superiorum  temporum 
meam  in  summum  pontificem  benivolentiam  pietatemque  obsecro  id, 
quod  cum  per  se  facile,  turn  vero  tuae  virtuti  facillimum;  non  beneficium 
non  munis  non  gratiam  non  veniam,  sed  ut  similis  tibi  sis,  ut  quod 
semper  fecisti  facias,  ne  aliter  ac  sentis  de  animo  ergo  me  tuosummique 
pontificis  rescribas,  etiamsi  me  tibi  odio  esse  nec  licere  mihi  in  patriam 
Tedire  dicas."    Barozzi  e  Sabbadini,  op.  cit.,  pp.  95-56. 

For  a  letter  to  Cardinal  Gerardo  in  a  similar  strain  cf.  ibid.,  p.  104. 


199] 


EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY 


199 


fluence.  It  probably  added  to  Porcaro's  anti-papal  con- 
victions and  affected  also  the  character  of  the  teaching 
of  Pomponius  Laetus.'  Valla's  name  more  than  that  of 
any  other  man  is  associated  by  writers  of  his  century,  as 
well  as  by  those  of  later  times,  with  the  refutation  of  the 
Donation.  Hutten  some  seventy  years  later  found  it 
being  read  in  Italy  and  got  at  least  two  copies  of  it 
there.'  Others,  however,  wrote  upon  the  subject,  some 
probably  independently  of  Valla.^ 

5.  Other  Critics  in  the  Time  of  the  Renaissance 

Aeneas  Sylvius  Piccolomini  in  a  treatise  begun  by  him 
while  on  the  im.perialist  side,  some  thirteen  years  after 
Valla's  {i.  e.,  c.  1453)  and  revised,  but  left  incomplete 
several  months  before  he  became  Pope  Pius  II,  describes 
an  imaginary  dialogue  in  which  St.  Bernard  of  Siena, 
Peter  of  Nocete  and  himself  figure,  and  Valla  is  men- 
tioned.In  this  dialogue  there  occurs  as  complete  a 
refutation  of  the  Donation  of  Constantine  as  Valla  had 
given,  and  at  some  points  a  more  valid  line  of  attack. 
The  baptism  of  Constantine  at  Nicomedia,  when  an  old 
man,  is  here  affirmed  correctly  as  excluding  the  w^hole 
story  of  the  Roman  baptism;  which  is  quite  an  improve- 
ment upon  Valla. 

Reginald  Pecock,  bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  and  later  of 

'  Cf.  Pastor,  History  of  the  Popes,  ii,  p.  221;  iv,  42;  Gregorovius,  op. 
cit.,  vii,  pp.  131,  575;  Creighton,  op.  cit.,  ii,  308-311  et  passim. 
Cf.  infra,  p.  203  et  seq. 

'  It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  Nicholas  Tudeschi,  esteemed 
the  greatest  canon  lawyer  of  Valla's  time,  wrote,  "whoever  denies  the 
Donation  of  Constantine  is  to  be  suspected  of  heresy."  Consil.  84,  n. 
2  cap.  "per  venerabilem." 

*Pius  ii,  Oraiiones,  i,  25;  iii,  85-100;  Piccolomini,  Opera  Inedita, 
p.  26s  et  seq.;  Mansi,  Conciliorum  Collectio,  xxx,  1203;  cf.  Mancini, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  148-149. 


200 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[200 


Chichester,  discussed  the  ''Donation"  in  his  famous 
book  The  Repressor  of  over  much  Blaming  of  the 
Clergy,"^  written  about  nine  years  after  Valla's  treatise, 
but  probably  independently  of  it.  Pecock's  criticism 
shows  remarkable  accuracy  in  investigation  and  is  based 
almost  entirely  upon  genuine  historical  sources.  He, 
also,  accepts  the  baptism  at  Nicomedia,  as  did  Aeneas 
Sylvius,  as  the  only  historical  one;  criticises  the  whole 
Sylvester  legend;  marks  the  absence  of  early  references 
to  the  Donation ;  cites  requests  of  early  popes  from  the 
emperors,  which  show  that  the  former,  long  after  Syl- 
vester, recognized  the  latter  as  their  temporal  sover- 
eigns. He  shows  the  actual  course  of  events  in  the 
growth  of  the  temporal  power  through  the  donations  of 
Pippin,  Charlemagne,  Louis  the  Pious,  and  Countess 
Mathilda.  His  reasoning  throughout  is  sound  and  con- 
vincing. 

A  scholar  now  little  known,  described  as  the  Reverend 
Father  in  God,  Hieronymus  Paulus  Cathalanus,  Canoni- 
cus  of  Barcelona,  LL.  D.,  and  a  secretary  of  Alexander 
VI,  has  left  a  note  combining  the  proofs  of  Valla  and 
Aeneas  Sylvius,  and  referring  to  other  similar  writings.^ 
It  probably  represents  the  view  of  the  Donation  gen- 
erally held  among  the  best  scholars  of  the  papal  court  at 
the  end  of  the  century.^ 

^Printed  in  the  Rolls  Series  {Rerum  britannicatum  mediiaevi  scrip- 
tores^  no.  iq),  London,  i860,  xix,  xx,  35C-5C6,  and  assigned  by  Whar- 
ton in  Appendix,  102,  to  the  year  1449.  For  a  recent  account  of  Peccck 
see  article  in  The  English  Historical  Reziew,  xxvi  (1911),  pp.  448-468, 
by  E.  M.  Blackie. 

^Printed  in  the  Reformation  pamphlet,  "  De  donatione  Constantini 
quid  veri  habeat  *  *  *  ut  in  versa  pagella  videbis." 

*  Guicciardini  (1483-1540)  Istoria  d' Italia  (1775  ed.),  vol.  i,  pp.  385- 
3^5,  shows  by  his  annihilation  of  the  Donation,  that  it  found  no  cre- 
dence among  men  of  letters  in  his  circle. 


2oi]  EXPOSURE  OF  THE  FORGERY  201 

Some  who  were  acquainted  with  the  general  trend  of 
the  argument  did  not  give  it  their  complete  assent.  The 
celebrated  theologian  and  casuist  Antoninus,  archbishop 
of  Florence  (1446-1459)/  says  that  the  Donation  was 
not  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  of  canon  law,  and  while 
accepted  by  theologians  and  canon-lawyers,  is  rejected 
by  secular  lawyers.  For  himself  he  holds  it  as  at  m.ost  a 
restitution  by  the  emperor  of  power  and  property  which 
belonged  to  the  pope  originally  by  divine  right. 

There  was  some  attempt  to  defend  the  Donation  as 
genuine.  Cortesi  brought  forth  an  Antivalla  (about 
1464)  which  consisted  chiefly  of  a  slanderous  account  of 
Valla  and  of  the  circumstances  under  which  he  wrote, 
and  of  the  condemnation  he  received.  It  still  remains  in 
manuscript.^  There  is  also  a  report  of  an  answer  in  1458 
to  a  trouble-making  Hussite  in  Strassburg  who  insisted 
too  vigorously  that  the  Donation  was  a  forgery ;  he  was 
burned  at  the  stake. ^  An  equally  convincing  proof  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  Donation  was  made  later  at 
Rome  in  the  pontificate  of  Julius  II,  when  one  Bar- 
tholemeus  Picernus  (or  Pincernus)  produced  a  copy  of 
it  purporting  to  be  a  Latin  translation  of  a  Greek 
original. 

The  day  of  the  Donation,  however,  was  past.  By  the 
time  of  Alexander  VI  it  had,  in  many  quarters,  become 
a  joke.  A  story  runs  that  when  that  pope  asked  for  a 
copy  of  the  grant  on  the  basis  of  which  Venice  claimed 
control  of  the  Adriatic,  the  Venetian  Girolamo  Donato 

^  In  his  "  Chronicon  partibus  tribus  distincta  ab  initio  mnndi  ad 
mccclix,"  (Venice,  1474-9),  printed,  also,  in  "  De  donatione  Constan- 
tini  quid  veri  habeat,"  etc. 

"^Cf.  Mancini,  op.  cit.,  pp.  160-162.  Another  fifteenth-century  refu- 
tation was  by  Giovanni  Antonio  di  Sangiorgio,  Cardinal  Allesandrino,. 
no  longer  extant. 

'Cited  by  Friedrich,  in  his  ed.  of  Dollinger,  Papstfabeln,  p.  118. 


202 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[202 


replied  that  he  would  find  it  written  on  the  back  of  the 
Donation  of  Constantine.'  Ariosto's  reference  is  akin 
to  this : 

Then  to  a  hill  of  vary'd  flowers  they  went 
That  sweet  before,  now  yields  a  fetid  scent; 
This  (let  me  dare  to  speak)  that  present  showed, 
Which  on  Sylvester  Constantine  bestowed.  ^ 

By  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Dona- 
tion was  thus  thoroughly  discredited.  Ecclesiastical  as 
well  as  secular  scholarship  generally  recognized  that  it 
was  a  gross  forgery.  Though  we  have  seen  that  many 
writers  contributed  to  this  result,  the  refutation  of  the 
forgery  seems  to  have  been  generally  attributed  to  Valla. 
While  not  as  yet  printed,  his  treatise  had  become  known 
to  many  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and 
many  manuscript  copies  of  it  seemx  to  have  been  in  ex- 
istence.3  The  treatise  was  referred  to  in  at  least  one 
scholastic  disputation  in  Germany,  at  Tubingen,  as  early 
as  1506."^  The  literary  merits  of  the  work,  the  incisive- 
ness  and  cleverness  of  its  arraignment  of  the  temporal 
power  of  the  papacy,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  it  was  by 
far  the  most  pretentious  expose  of  the  Donation,  doubt- 
less fostered  the  tendency  to  assign  the  whole  merit  of 
the  critical  achievement  to  it,  a  tendency  which  still 
continues  among  modern  writers.^ 

^  Cf.  Mancini;  op.  cit.,  p.  159. 

^Orlando  furioso,  bk.  xxxiv,  v  80,  Hoole's  trans.,  xxxiv,  1.  622  et  seq. 
"  Di  vari  fiore  ad  un  grand  monte  passa, 
Chi  ebbe  gia  buono  odore,  or  puzza  forte; 
Questo  era  il  dono  (se  pero  dir  lece) 
Che  Constantino  al  buon  Silvestro  fece." 

'Hutten  ran  across  at  least  two  in  Italy,  cf.  infra,  p.  203  et  seq. 
^Cf.  extract  in  Schard,  opus  cit.,  pp.  426-434. 

^  Cf,  G.  B.  Adams,  History  of  Civilization  during  the  Middle  Ages, 
p.  378. 


CHAPTER  III 


The  ''Donation"  in  the  Protestant  Revolution. 
Modern  Scientific  Historical  Criticism 

I.  Hutten  s  Publicatioii  of  Valla  s  Treatise 

The  Protestant  Revolution  gave  a  new  turn  to  the 
discussion.  After  being  discredited  by  men  who,  how- 
ever hostile  they  might  be  to  the  political  pretensions  of 
the  papacy,  had  no  thought  of  rebellion  against  the 
Church,  the  ''Donation"  was  taken  up  by  German  revo- 
lutionists as  proof  of  the  fraud  and  deceit  by  wdiich  the 
papacy  had  obtained  its  unrighteous  power.  Ulrich  von 
Hutten  started  the  attack  by  the  secret  publication  in 
Germany,  in  1517,  of  Valla's  treatise,  which  up  to  that 
time  had  remained  in  manuscript.  He  affixed  to  it,  with 
his  characteristic  effrontery,  a  dedicatory  letter  to  Leo 
X,  full  of  pretended  kindness  toward  that  pope.  Hutten 
had  run  across  the  book  in  Italy  and  was  quick  to  see 
what  an  effective  w^eapon  it  was.'    After  the  Protest- 

'  See  the  following  interesting  letter,  Hutten's  Opera,  ed.  Becking, 
i,  p.  142, 

"Joannes  Cochlaeus  Bilibaldo  Pirckheimero  Bononiae  (Bologna), 
5  Jul,  1517. 

*  *  *  "  abiit  ad  vos  ante  octiduum  noster  Huttenus,  homo  ingenii 
magis  acuti  et  acris  quam  placida  et  quieti.  Dedi  ei  litteras,  quanquam 
visus  fuerat  a  nobis  nonnihil  abalienatus.  Amo  equidem  hominis  in- 
genium,  ferociam  ejus  non  ita;  longe  certe  facilius  absentem  quam 
praesentem  (ita  tecum  loqui  libet^  amicum  servabo.  Pridie  quam  re- 
cederet  apud  me  vidit  Laurentii  Vallae  libellum  contra  Constantini  do- 
nationem,  quem  ego  ad  modicum  tempus  videndum  ab  alio  com- 
modatum  acceperam,  vult  homo  eum  libellum  in  Germania  rursus  im- 
203]  203 


204 


CONSTAXTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[204 


ant  movement  started,  his  edition  was  frequently  re- 
printed.' 

2.  Luther  s  Attitude,  Protestant  Attack,  Catholic  Defense 

Hutten's  publication  fell  into  Luther's  hands  shortly 
after  his  debate  with  Eck  at  Leipsic  and  added  fuel  to 
the  flame  of  his  wrath.    He  wrote  to  Spalatin : 

have  at  hand  Lorenzo  Valla's  proof  (edited  by 
Hutten)  that  the  Donation  of  Constantine  is  a  forgery. 
Good  heavens !  what  darkness  and  wickedness  is  at 
Rome!  You  wonder  at  the  judgm.ent  of  God  that  such 
unauthentic,  crass,  impudent  lies  not  only  lived,  but  pre- 
vailed for  so  many  centuries,  that  they  were  incorporated 
in  the  canon  law,  and  (that  no  degree  of  horror  might 
be  wanting)  that  they  became  as  articles  of  faith.  I  am 
in  such  a  passion  that  I  scarcely  doubt  that  the  Pope  is 

pressioni  mandare;  petit,  ut  libellus  iste,  quia  correctior  esset,  trans- 
scriberetur;  non  potui  ei  id  denegare;  transscriptus  est  a  Fridericho 
Herbipolensi;  transmittetur  ei  post  paucos  dies;  sed  et  foris  habent  ex- 
emplaria.  Credo  equidem  verissima  esse  quae  scripsit  Laurentius; 
vereor  tamen  ne  tuto  edi  queant.  at  Huttenus  anathema  non  formidat, 
et  indignum  mihi  videtur,  ut  Veritas  a  veritatis  gladio  prohibeatur,  facile 
igitur  illius  ausu  in  lucem  Laurentii  libertas,  qua  baud  inferiorem 
Francus  ille  gerit,  redibit.  Scribunt  super  commenticia  ilia  donatione 
commenta  multa  canonistae  et  theologiet  cucullati;  sed  omnium  ratiun- 
culas,  immo  captiunculas  quisque  cui  non  nihil  sit  cerebri,  facile  repel- 
leret.  At  ego  contra  canonistas  loqui  non  debeo,  ne  tibi  videar  rursus 
ejus  studii  apostata;  non  certe  id  desero,  quanquam  magna  cum  displi- 
centia  plurima  lego,  praesertim  ea  quae  sunt  in  Sexto  et  Clementinis, 
ubi  nulla  verbositas  pontificum  avaritiae  satisfacere  potest." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Cochlaeus  says  Hutten  wanted  "  eum  libellum 
in  Germania  rursus  impressioni  mandare."  This  would  seem  to  imply 
that  it  had  already  been  printed  in  Italy.  I  have,  however,  been  unable 
to  obtain  any  trace  of  such  an  edition  in  any  of  the  catalogues  of  incun- 
abula or  elsewhere,  and  infer  that  the  above  is  merely  a  loose  use  of 
words. 

^1518  (?),  1520,  1530,  1618,  1666,  i6qo,  etc.  Cf.  Bockiv.g,  Huiteni 
Opera,  i,  18-IQ. 


205]  ™^  PROTESTANT  REVOLUTION  205 

Antichrist  expected  by  the  world,  so  closely  do  their 
acts,  lives,  sayings  and  laws  agree.  But  more  of  this 
when  I  see  you.  If  you  have  not  yet  seen  the  book,  I 
shall  take  care  that  you  read  it."' 

This  played  no  small  part  in  the  mental  process  by 
which  Luther,  naturally  conservative  and  submissive  to 
what  he  considered  to  be  legitimate  authority,  came  to 
look  upon  the  papacy  as  a  usurpation  and  illegitimate 
tyranny,  and  so  passed  on  into  open  revolt.  Thus,  as 
the  real  Constantine  had  a  large  share  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  legendary  Constantine 
contributed  to  the  Protestant  movement  away  from  that 
church. 

The  Protestant  attack  led  to  a  renewed  defence  of  the 
Donation;  indeed  it  probably  prolonged  that  defence  for 
generations  after  it  would  otherwise  have  been  abandoned. 
Steuchus,  librarian  of  the  Vatican,  was  its  ablest  champion. * 
He  made  a  general  defence  of  the  temporal  power  of  the 
papacy,  smoothed  over  some  of  the  inconsistencies  of  the 
document  in  question  by  doctoring  the  text,  and  argued 
for  the  baptism  of  Constantine  by  Sylvester.  In  this 
last  he  made  the  mistake  of  assuming  that  Constantine 
would  not  have  presided  at  the  Council  of  Nicea  if  he 
had  not  previously  been  baptized,  but  he  was  entirely 
right  and  successful  in  overthrowing  the  story  of  Con- 
stantine and  Miltiades  (Melchiades)  upon  which  Valla 
had  relied. 

^  Feb.  24,  1520.  I  have  given  the  translation  of  Preserved  Smith  , 
Marthi  Luther,  p.  73.  Luther  wrote  in  a  similar  strain  in  his  Address 
to  the  Christian  Nobility  of  the  German  Nation  of  the  same  year. 

*In  his  Contra  Laurentiiini  de  falsa  donatione,  1545,  1547. 


2o6 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


3.  Baronius 

Many  dissertations  and  compilations'  were  published 
in  the  controversy  in  the  sixteenth  century.  This  phase 
of  the  matter,  however,  ended  with  Baronius,  the  greatest 
Catholic  church  historian  of  these  controversial  genera- 
tions. In  his  Annales  Ecclesiastici  (published  1588- 1607) 
written  in  advocacy  of  the  papacy  and  the  Catholic 
Church,  he  took  the  position  that  the  falsity  of  the  Do- 
nation had  been  proven  and,  abandoning  its  defence,  dis- 
cussed it  as  a  forgery.  ^  Some  later  Catholic  writers 
attempted  a  defence,  and  occasionally,  almost  down  to 
the  present,  some  ill-informed,  ill-advised  enthusiast  has 
come  forward  to  use  it  as  genuine,  but  in  educated  circles 
this  became  entirely  out  of  the  question  after  Baronius' 
great  work  appeared.  This  one  negative  result  of  his- 
torical criticism  was  thus,  in  spite  of  the  disturbing  influ- 
ence of  the  Protestant  conflict,  firmly  established  in  the 
course  of  approximately  one  hundred  and  fifty  years. 

The  way  seemed  clear  for  a  dispassionate  scientific 
study  of  the  origin  of  the  forgery.  But  Baronius,  who 
opened  the  way,  also  carried  over  into  the  later  discussion 
the  point  of  view  of  religious  controversy.  He  was  the 
first  to  bring  into  prominence,  after  the  question  of 
genuineness  was  settled,  the  question  of  the  source  and 
circumstances  of  the  forger}^  itself  He  seems  to  have 
done  it,  however,  purely  as  a  means  of  removing  re- 
sponsibility for  the  forgery  from  the  papacy.    It  is  inter- 

^  The  most  notable  of  the  latter  is  that  of  Simon  Schard  referred  to  in 
an  earlier  chapter,  Syntagma  variorium  atitoruni  de  imperiali  juris- 
dictione  et  protestate  ecclesiastica,  printed  also  under  the  title,  Syntagma 
tractatium  de  imperiali  jurisdictione ,  authoritate,  et  praeeminentia, 
ac  potestate  ecclesiastica,  etc.  Basil,  1566.  This  contained  reprints  of 
most  of  the  earlier  writings  attacking  the  Donation. 

'Under  the  year  324,  nos.  117-123.    Cf.  also  A.  D.  1191,  no  51. 


207] 


THE  PROTESTANT  REVOLUTION 


207 


esting,  but  natural,  that  the  very  historian  whose  won- 
derful erudition  and  research  Protestants  criticized  for 
its  lack  of  command  of  Greek,  should  assign  the  forgery 
to  just  that  field  about  which  he  knew  the  least,  namely, 
writers  of  the  Greek  Church.'  Starting  with  his  apolo- 
getic attitude  on  behalf  of  the  papacy,  and  the  existence 
of  Greek  texts  of  the  Donation,  he  advanced  the  theory 
that  Greeks  had  perpetrated  the  forgery  and  used  it  to 
establish  the  antiquity  of  the  See  of  Constantinople.^ 
The  popes  innocently  accepted  it  as  genuine  and  so  fell 
into  the  trap  of  using  it.  This  position  is  crude  and  un- 
tenable, for  aside  from  other  historical  impossibilities  in- 
volved there  are  numerous  indications  that  the  Greek 
texts  are  merely  translations  from  the  Latin. ^  But  it 
represents  one  of  the  starting  points  of  the  modern  sci- 
entific inquiry  into  the  source  of  the  Donation.  It  also 
forecast  the  survival  of  religious  controversy  in  this 
historical  question,  for  down  to  the  present  there  per- 
sists the  tendency  on  the  part  of  many  Catholic  scholars 
to  find  some  scapegoat  (nowadays  the  French  forgers  of 
the  ninth  century  usually  play  this  role),  and  on  the  part 
of  many  Protestants  to  attribute  the  Donation  and  its 
use  altogether  too  much  to  continuous,  designing 
knavery  on  the  part  of  the  papacy. 

In  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  there  were 
occasional  writings  upon  the  Donation,  but  these  fol- 
lowed the  lines  laid  down  earlier  and  are  of  no  particular 
interest. 

^Loc.  cit. 

'He  accepted  the  story  of  Sylvester  and  Constantine  as  historical  (C/. 
A.  D.  324,  nos.  43-49),  including  the  Roman  baptism,  most  of  the 
material  of  the  lita  or  Gesta  Sylvestri,  and  the  actual  grant  of  power 
and  possession  to  Sylvester,  but  held  that  the  Greeks  had,  on  the  basis 
of  these  historical  facts,  forged  the  document  of  the  Donation  itself. 

'  C/.  Dollinger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  74-78. 


2o8  CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY  [208 

4.  Character  of  Modern  Scie^itijic  Criticism  of  the 
"  Donation  " 

The  great  ultramontane  controversy  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  however,  culminating  at  the  time  of  the  Vatican 
Council,  brought  again  into  prominence  the  medieval 
history  of  the  papacy.  The  Donation  of  Constantine 
was  made  the  subject  of  more  prolonged  and  micro- 
scopic research  than  any  other  episode  of  similar  im- 
portance in  European  history.  A  comparison  of  this 
series  of  investigation  with  earlier  ones  brings  out  clearly 
the  vast  improvement  that  had  been  made  in  the  mean- 
time in  historical  W'Ork.  A  whole  library  of  lexicons 
showing  the  history  of  the  use  of  words  as  well  as  their 
varying  meanings,  vast  compilations  of  sources  of  all 
sorts  and  in  all  languages,  accurate  and  detailed  accounts 
of  the  course  of  events,  careful  study  and  comparison  of 
manuscripts,  critical  editions  of  texts,  countless  organs 
of  publication  through  technical  reviews  and  learned 
societies,  in  short,  all  those  products  of  v\^hat  has  not 
inaptly  been  termed  an  industrial  revolution"  in  learned 
circles,  has  put  at  the  disposal  of  scholars  an  equipment 
with  which  apparent  impossibilities  are  constantly  being- 
accomplished. 

Moreover,  though  the  old  confessional  and  apologetic 
attitude  has  not  entirely  disappeared,  a  new  spirit  is 
clearly  visible  in  the  best  modern  criticism,  the  spirit  of 
scientific  curiosity,  the  effort  to  ascertain  and  understand 
facts,  rather  than  to  defend  or  to  discredit  existing 
institutions.  Discussion  of  the  Donation  of  Constan- 
tine now  involves  the  task,  beside  which  earlier  efforts 
seem  puerile,  of  discovering  the  process  by  ^vhich  the 
story  and  the  document  came  into  being,  and  the  identi- 
fication of  the  place,  the  time  and  even  the  author  of  the 
forgery.     The  unraveling  of  the  legendary  process  out 


MODERN  SCIENTIFIC  CRITICISM 


209 


of  which  the  story  of  Constantine's  leprosy  and  Roman 
baptism  developed  and  the  significance  of  the  whole 
group  of  legends  about  the  emperor  has  been  described 
above/  The  forged  document  has  also  become  recog- 
nized as  a  composite  resultant  of  ideas  and  forces  lying 
deep  in  the  life  of  the  Middle  Ages,  with  a  history  ob- 
scure and  difficult,  but  intensely  interesting.  The  mate- 
rials for  an  understanding  of  this  history  are  imbedded 
in  scores  and  even  hundreds  of  documents  surviving 
from  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries,  in  peculiarities  of 
style  and  vocabulary  of  various  writers,  and  of  various 
chancelleries,  in  political  and  ecclesiastical  crises  which 
might  have  spurred  men  on  to  the  creation  of  false  evi- 
dence. The  problem  has  appealed  strongly  to  scientific 
curiosity  and  has  occupied  the  energy  of  many  of  the 
foremost  European  historians  of  the  last  two  generations 
in  Italy,  France  and  especially  Germany.  It  seems  to 
have  become,  like  the  old  scholastic  problems,  a  field  of 
exercise  to  sharpen  the  wits  of  scholars,  deriving  im- 
portance not  from  any  practical  bearing  the  solution 
may  have,  but  from  the  light  it  throws  upon  the  pro- 
cesses and  possibilities  of  modern  historical  investiga- 
tion.'' 

5.  Conclusions 
This  work  has  not  resulted  in  unanimity  as  to  the 
place  or  exact  time  of  the  forgery.    Differences  in  the 

^Cf.  supra,  pp.  153-172. 

^  For  list  of  the  more  important  writings  see  Bibliography.  For  short 
summaries  see  the  excellent  articles  upon  Constantine,  Donation  of,  in 
the  last  edition  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  and  the  Catholic  Cyclo- 
pedia. For  the  most  important  contributions  to  the  discussion  see  the 
works  of  Bollinger,  Grauert,  Langen,  Friedrich,  Brunner,  Zeumer, 
Scheffer-Boichorst,  Hartmann.  The  highwater  mark  was  probably 
reached  about  the  decade  from  1880-1890;  since  then  there  has  been  a 
decline,  at  least  in  the  volume  of  the  discussion. 


2IO 


CONSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[210 


latter  extend  over  a  hundred  years,  750-850;  and  both 
Italy  and  France  are  advanced  as  the  source  of  the 
document.'  Substantial  arguments  are  not  wanting  for 
these  varying  conclusions;  the  decision,  as  yet  must  be 
one  of  probability  and  not  of  certainty.  The  following 
results,  however,  seem  to  me  to  best  satisfy  the  require- 
ments. 

The  legend  of  Constantine's  leprosy  and  cure  and  of 
his  rich  gifts  to  the  Roman  church  had  been  current  at 
Rome  long  before  the  eighth  century.''  This  legend 
seems  to  have  taken  on  new  features  from  time  to  time, 
chiefly  by  way  of  assigning  a  greater  place  to  the  bishop 
of  Rome,  and  of  attributing  greater  concessions  and 
grants  to  him  at  the  hand  of  the  emperor. ^  Pope  Had- 
rian I  (772-795)  undoubtedly  was  familiar  with  the 
legend  in  a  form  which  represented  Constantine  as  giv- 
ing important  privileges  and  grants  to  the  pope  and  the 
Roman  clergy,  and  endorsed  it  by  his  use  of  it.^ 

^The  theory  of  a  Greek  origin  was  so  completely  refuted  by  Bol- 
linger, Papstfabeln,  etc.,  p.  74  et  seg.,  that  it  has  been  completely 
abandoned. 

'The  researches  of  Dollinger  and  Duchesne  have  thrown  abundant 
light  on  this  fact.    Cf.  supra,  p.i6s  ei  seg. 

^  Friedrich  has  attempted  to  point  out  definite  redactions  of  the  legend 
in  the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries,  and  has  also  divided  the  document 
of  the  Constitutum  {or  Donatio7i)  of  Constantine  into  two  parts,  the  first 
dating  from  638-641  (after  634,  cf.  op.  cit.,  p.  53)  and  the  last  from  752- 
757  (probably  just  before  754,  cf.  op.  cit.,  p.  no  et.  seg.).  He  is  not  in 
my  judgment  successful  in  this  latter  effort,  but  the  larger  fact  of  devi- 
ations in  the  legend  in  the  direction  indicated  is,  I  think,  established. 

^In  letters  to  the  eastern  rulers,  Constantine  and  Irene,  785  A.  D., 
given  in  Mansi  xii,  1056-1076,  and  to  Charlemagne  in  775,  776,  778,  cf. 
Cod.  Car.,  no.  Ix;  ]2&k,  Bibliotheca,  iv,  197;  Mansi,  Concil.  Coll.,  xii, 
819.  The  resemblances  between  phrases  of  these  letters  and  texts  of 
the  Donation  of  Constantine  is  so  close  at  times  as  to  suggest  that 
Hadrian  used  such  a  text  himself.  This  has  been  maintained  by  many 
scholars,  cf.  e.  g.  Friedrich,  op.  cit.,  pp.  2-15,  where  some  of  the  strik- 


2Il] 


MODERN  SCIENTIFIC  CRITICISM 


211 


The  earliest  known  manuscript  of  the  Constitutum  is 
the  one  in  Codex  Parisiensis  Lat.  2778,  found  in  the  Col- 
lectio  Sancti  Dionysii  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Denis  in 
France. '  The  collection  contains  documents  dating 
from  the  last  years  of  the  eighth  century  (though  it  may 
have  been  put  together  later),  antedating  the  appearance 
of  the  pseudo-Isidorean  collection  by  a  generation  or 
more.  All  the  other  early  manuscripts  including  those 
of  the  pseudo-Isidorean  Decretals,  which  brought  the 
document  into  general  prominence,  have  been  found  in 
France.  French  writers,  also,  were  the  first  to  refer  to 
the  Donation.  This  indicates  that  its  earliest  use  was 
there  and  has  led  to  the  theory  that  the  document  was 
forged  there.  The  language  however  so  clearly  indicates 
a  Roman  source,  and  historical  circumstances  point  so 
strongly  in  the  same  direction,  that  the  Frankish  origin 
seems  untenable. 

The  most  exhaustive  and  exact  study  of  the  language 
and  use  of  terms  in  the  Constitutum  Constanti7tih^s  been 
made  by  Scheffer-Boichorst.  ^  He  has  shown  a  con- 
vincing resemblance  in  ideas,  in  style,  and  in  vocabulary 
to  the  usage  of  the  papal  chancery  of  Stephen  II 
(III)  (752-757)  and  Paul  I  {JS?-?^?),  and  locates  the 

ing  passages  are  put  in  parallel  columns.  However,  it  seems  only  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  Hadrian  would  have  referred  to  the  document 
if  he  had  had  it  before  him  in  legal  form.  Other  considerations  also 
point  to  Hadrian's  citing,  not  the  legal  document  which  we  have  in 
the  Constitutum  Constantini,  but  the  legend  in  its  literary  form,  prob- 
ably in  some  text  which  we  do  not  now  have.  Hadrian's  source  is 
therefore  uncertain, 

^  For  description  and  discussion  of  rn^nuscripts,  see  Zeumer,  in  Fest- 
gabe  fur  Rudolf  vo7i  Gneist,  pp.  39-47.  For  Zeumer's  edition  of  the 
text  of  the  Constitutum  Constantini,  cf.  infra,  pp.  228-237. 

^"Neue  Forschungen  iiber  die  Konstantinische  Schenkung,"  in 
Mittheilungen  d,  Instituts  fUr  osterr.  Ceschichtsforshung,  x  (1889),  p. 
325  et  seq.;  xi  (1890),  p.  128  et  seq.  Also  in  his  Gesammelte  Schriften 
in  the  Historische  Studie?i  of  E.  Eberling,  vol.  xlii. 


212 


COXSTANTINE  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


[212 


forgery  in  the  time  and  in  the  chancery  of  the  latter 
pope.  He  attributes  it  not  only  to  the  effort  to  exalt 
the  authority  and  prerogatives  of  the  Roman  See,  but 
more  particularly  to  a  desire  to  glorify  Sylvester.  There 
is  justification  for  this  on  the  further  ground  that  Paul 
I  was  especially  interested  in  Sylvester,  having  founded 
a  monastery  of  his  name  in  761.  The  glorification  of  the 
saint  by  a  forgery  ascribing  high  place  to  him  would  not 
be  an  impossibility  at  that  time.  The  argument  from 
the  document  itself  is  so  strongly  in  favor  of  an  origin 
at  Rome  and  about  that  time  that  the  substance  of  the 
Donation  must  be  so  assigned. 

Reasoning  from  the  possible  motives  of  the  forger  is 
uncertain,  but  must  nevertheless  be  taken  into  account. 
One  motive  frequently  assigned  seems  clearly  a  fallacy; 
namely,  the  supposition  that  the  Donation  was  forged 
for  use  as  an  inducement  for  Pippin  to  make  grants 
of  Italian  land  to  the  popes.  One  can  easily  ascertain 
what  inducements  the  popes  actually  held  out  to  him 
to  get  help  for  the  papacy.  They  do  not  use  the  name 
of  Constantine  at  all ;  that  would  then  have  had  no 
appeal  for  the  Franks.  They  use  St.  Peter,  however, 
time  and  time  again. '  Stephen  II  even  wrote  a  letter 
in  the  name  of  St.  Peter  to  Pippin  urging  and  command- 
ing the  Frank  to  come  to  the  help  of  Rome.  ^  Far  from 
being  produced  by  the  Constitutum  Co?istantiniy  the 
donation  of  Pippin  more  likely  suggested  the  later  use 
of  the  story  of  Constantine's  gifts  to  Sylvester  as  a  sup- 
port for  definite  papal  claims. 

It  is  entirely  probable  that  the  forgery  was  not  per- 
petrated for  immediate  use  in  support  of  papal  preten- 

'  Cf.  Cod.  Carol.,  nos.  12,  42,  45,  65;  see  also  article  by  Haller,  Die 
Karolinger  u .  d.  Papsttum,  in  Hist.  Zeit,,  108,  3-12,  i,  pp.  39-76. 
''Cod.  Carol.,  10  (A.  D.  756),  p.  55. 


213]  MODERN  SCIENTIFIC  CRITICISM  213 

sions  over  against  the  Prankish  rulers.  The  foro;-er  is  very 
vague  and  indefinite  as  to  donations  of  land,  but  he  makes 
sweeping  statements  concerning  the  transfer  of  imperial, 
political  power  in  Italy  to  the  papacy,  and  very  definite 
statements  of  the  honor  and  dignity  granted  to  the  pope 
by  the  emperor.  What  is  given  most  explicitly  is  the 
dignity,  the  aristocratic  rank,  what  we  might  even  call 
the  social  prerogatives,  of  the  Roman  bishop  and  his 
clergy,  and  Constantine's  surrender  to  him  of  imperial 
jurisdiction  in  the  West.  These  matters  were  not  in- 
volved in  the  relations  of  the  papacy  and  the  Franks. 
Moreover  it  is  doubtful  whether  to  Pippin  the  old 
Roman  emperors  were  more  than  distant  names,  and 
whether  an  old  imperial  document  would  have  had  any 
considerable  influence  upon  him. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  latter  half  of  the  eighth  cen- 
tury was  precisely  the  time  when  the  papacy  finally 
broke  the  political  ties  which  bound  it  to  Constanti- 
nople. Such  assertions  as  the  Donation  "  makes  w^ould 
be  of  great  use  in  vindicating  the  independent  policy  of 
the  papacy  in  Italy  over  against  the  lingering  claims  of 
the  eastern  emperor.  If  there  was  any  particular  occa- 
sion at  Rome  in  the  time  of  Stephen  II  and  Paul  I  w^hich 
called  for  magnificent  assertions  of  that  sort,  it  has  not 
as  yet  come  to  light.  There  may  \vell  have  been  such 
an  occasion,  but  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  assume  it; 
the  general  situation  and  aspirations  of  the  Roman  bishop 
and  clergy  in  the  troublous  times  of  the  eighth  century 
were  occasion  enough.  The  forgery  itself  did  not  in- 
volve the  creation  of  much  new  material,  it  consisted  in 
throwing  into  the  form  of  a  legal  document  a  current 
version  of  the  legend  of  Constantine's  Roman  baptism 
with  current  confessions  of  faith  inserted,  and  adding  a 
grant  by  Constantine  to  Sylvester  of  imperial  rank,  of  the 


214 


COXSTAXTINE  AND  CHRISTIAXITY 


[214 


imperial  crown,  of  the  government  of  Italy,  and  of  other 
social  and  ecclesiastical  perquisites.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
said  to  have  merely  added  to  the  Sylvester  legend  a 
formal  confession  of  the  orthodox  faith,  and  a  pretended 
official,  legal  grant  from  Constantine  to  Sylvester  of 
prerogatives  and  a  position  which  the  popes  had  already 
begun  to  hold  in  central  Italy/ 

The  first  use  made  of  the  document  to  impress  the 
Franks  and  their  rulers  dates  from  after  the  death  of 
Charlemagne.  It  may  have  been  cited  for  the  purpose 
for  which  Brunner  thinks  it  was  forged,  namely,  to  prove 
to  Louis  the  Pious  the  necessity  of  receiving  the  impe- 
rial crown  at  the  hands  of  the  pope.  There  is  no  direct 
proof  of  this,  but  the  situation  was  appropriate,  and,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  Louis  did  repeat  the  coronation  cere- 
mony at  Rheims  in  816,  and  was  crowned  this  time  by 
pope  Stephen  IV. ^     By  the  middle  of  the  century  the 

^  It  has  long  been  recognized  that  the  "  Donation"  in  granting  to 
the  pope  imperial  rights  over  "  Rome  and  all  the  provinces,  places  and 
states  of  Italy,  and  the  Western  regions,"  dealt  only  with  Italy,  Lom- 
bardy,  Venetia  and  Istria,  and  adjacent  islands.  In  this  point  it  was 
merely  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  papal  policy,  in  view  of  the 
danger  from  the  Lombards,  etc.,  that  the  eastern  empire,  which  could 
no  longer  protect  Italy,  should  not  interfere  so  as  to  check  or  humiliate 
Rome.  It  sanctions  that  policy  b}'-  showing  that  Constantine  had  per- 
manently ceded  imperial  authority  in  "Italy  *  *  *  and  the  Western 
regions"  to  the  popes.  This  is  well  brought  out  by  Hartmann, 
Geschichte  Italiens  im  Mittelalter,  ii,  ii  (1903),  pp.  218-231,  et  passim, 
the  best  discussion  of  the  "  Donation"  in  its  relation  to  the  Italian 
situation.  Cf.  also,  Caspar,  E.,  Pippin  u.  d.  romische  Kirchs  (Berlin, 
1914),  pp.  185-189. 

The  rather  surprising  frequency  of  Greek  MSS.  of  the  "  Donation  " 
and  of  its  use  at  Constantinople  {cf.  Dollinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  72)  seg. 
Steuchus  said  he  had  seen  four  Greek  MSS.  of  it  in  the  Vatican  Library) 
may  be  an  indication  of  an  early  attempt  to  cite  it  there.  If  this  be  so, 
there  is  an  interesting  analogy  between  the  effort  of  Baronius  and  his 
successors  to  prove  the  Greek  origin  of  the  forgery,  and  the  eftort  of 
Grauert  and  others  recently  to  prove  its  Prankish  origin. 

''Grauert,     Die  Konstaninische  Schenkung,"  in  the  Hist.  Jahrbuch 


MODERN  SCIENTIFIC  CRITICISM 


215 


Constitutum  Constantini  had  gained  recognition  in  France 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  ensure  its  circulation  and  preser- 
vation.   Its  subsequent  history  has  already  been  told. 

des  Gdrresgesellschaft  in  1882-1884,  made  a  strong  argument  for  the 
origin  of  the  document  at  a  date  in  the  eighth  century  (after  840). 
Brunner,  in  the  Fesigabe  fur  Rudolf  von  Gneist  (1888),  pp.  1-35,  agreed 
with  Grauert  in  fixing  a  later  date  than  had  formerly  been  common,  but 
locates  the  forgery  at  Rome  (instead  of  in  France,  as  Grauert  had 
done)  and  between  813  and  816.  Though  an  earlier  date  than  this 
seems  called  for,  the  document  may  have  been  touched  up  in  one  or 
two  places  for  the  use  referred  to  above. 


APPENDIX  I 


Ti-iE  Conversion  of  Constantine  in  the  Vita  Sylvestri 

Vita  Silvestri,  from  Boninus  Mombritius ;  Sanctuarium 
seu  Vitae  sanctorum  (Milan,  c.  1479),  Tom.  II,  f.  289  et  seq. 
New  ed.  duo  monachi  Solesmenses  (Benedictines  in  France), 
(Paris,  1910),  II,  p.  508  et  seq.  The  text  of  the  following  is 
based  on  the  1910  edition,  a  careful  comparison  of  this  edition 
with  the  older  one  having  shown  that  the  editing  was  carefully 
done.  Some  of  the  opening  sections,  and  the  last  parts,  are 
omitted  as  not  bearing  on  the  subject  in  hand.  Cf.  supra,  pp. 
161-164. 

PROLOGVS  in  VITAM  SANCTI  SYLVESTRI  PAPAE  ET  CONFESSORIS 

Historiograpbus  ^  noster  Eusebius  Caesariae  Palestinae  urbis 
episcopus  cum  historiam  ecclesiasticam  scriberet  .  pretermisit 
ea  :  quae  in  aliis  opusculis  sunt  :  uel  quae  se  meminit  retu- 
lisse  :  Nam  uiginti  libros  idest  duas  decadas  omnium  pene 
prouinciarum  passiones  martyrum  et  episcoporum  et  con- 
fessorum  et  sacrarum  uirginum  ac  mulierum  continere  fecit  . 
Deinde  secutus  et  ab  apostolo  Petro  omnium  episcoporum 
nomina  et  gesta  conscripsit  :  et  earum  urbium  :  quae  arcem 
pontificatus  per  apostolicas  sedes  tenere  noscuntur  :  ut  urbs 
Roma  .  Antiochia  .  hyerosolima  .  Ephesus  et  Alexandria  . 
Harum  urbium  episcoporum  omnium  praeteritorum  nomina 
usque  ad  tempus  suum  at  gesta  graeco  sermone  conscripsit  : 
Ex  quo  numero  unum  episcoporum  urbis  Romae  sanctum  Syl- 
uestrum  me  de  graeco  in  latinum  transferre  praecepisti  domine 
sancte  ac  beatissime  pater  .  Quia  itaque  exiguum  me  ad  trans- 
lationem  banc  esse  consydero  :  elegi  hoc  detergere  :  quod  sim 
parui  sermonis  et  inertis  ingenii  :  Vnde  obsecro  :  ut  pro  me 
tuis  orationibus  impetres  :  ne  qui  culpam  contemptoris  fugio  : 
praesumptoris  noxam  incurram  :  sed  tuis  orationibus  ueniam 
me  consequi  non  dubito  .  Credo  enim  quod  orando  impleri 
facias  :  quod  me  arripere  iubendo  fecisti  . 

1  Word  misspelled  in  original. 
217]  217 


2l8 


APPENDIX 


[218 


Syluester  urbis  Romae  episcopus  cum  infantulus  esset  a 
uidua  matre  lusta  nomine  et  opere  traditus  est  ut  erudiretur 
a  Cyrino  presbytero  :  cui  quottidie  sedulum  exhibebat  offi- 
cium  :  Eius  autem  uitam  imitatus  et  mores  :  ad  summum  api- 
cem  christianae  religionis  attigit  ^ 

In  illo  tempore  exiit  edictum  :  ut  christiani  ad  sacrificandum 
idolis  cogerentur  :  unde  factum  est  ut  secedens  ab  urbe  sanctus 
Syluester  Sirapti  latibulo  cum  suis  se  clericis  collocaret  .  Con- 
stantinus  autem  Augustus  monarchiam  tenens  cum  plurimas 
strages  de  christianis  dedisset  :  et  innumerabilem  populum  per 
omnes  prouincias  fecisset  uariis  poenarum  generibus  inter- 
fici  :  elefantiae  a  deo  lepra  in  toto  corpore  percussus  est  .  Huic 
cum  diuersa  magorum  et  medicorum  agmina  subuenire  non 
potuissent  :  pontifices  capitolii  hoc  dederunt  consilium  :  de- 
bere  piscinam  fieri  in  ipso  capitolio  :  quae  puerorum  sanguine 
repleretur  :  in  quam  calido  ac  fumante  sanguine  nudus  de- 
scendens  Augustus  mox  posset  a  uulnere  illius  leprae  mundari  . 
Missum  est  igitur  et  de  rebus  fisci  uel  patrimonii  regis  ad  tria 
millia  ;  et  eo  amplius  adducti  ad  urbem  Romam  pontificibus 
traditi  sunt  Capitolii  ,  Die  autem  constituto  egrediente  im- 
peratore  Constantino  palatium  ad  hoc  eunti  ad  capitollium  :  ut 
sanguis  innoxius  funderetur  :  occurrit  multitudo  mulierum  : 
quae  omnes  resolutis  crinibus  nudatisque  pectoribus  dantes 
hululatus  et  mugitus  coram  eo  se  in  plateis  fundentes  lachry- 
mas  strauerunt  .  Percunctatus  itaque  Constantinus  Augustus 
qua  de  causa  multitudo  haec  mulierum  ista  faceret  :  didicit  has 
matres  esse  filiorum  eorum  :  quorum  effundendus  erat  san- 
guis :  tandiu  quousque  piscina  repleretur  :  in  qua  medendi 
causa  lauandus  descenderet  et  sanandus  .  Tunc  imperator  ex- 
horruit  facinus  :  et  se  tantorum  criminum  reum  fore  apud 
deum  existimans  :  quantorum  esset  numerus  puerorum  :  uicit 
crudelitatem  pontificum  pietas  romani  imperii  :  et  prorum- 
pens  in  lachrymis  iussit  stare  carrucam  :  et  erigens  se  ac  conu- 
ocans  uniuersos  clara  uoce  dixit  :  audite  me  comites  et  com- 
militones  et  omnes  populi  :  qui  astatis  :  romani  imperii  digni- 

1  The  other  opening  sections  are  omitted  as  not  bearing  upon  the 
subject  in  hand. 


219]  APPENDIX  219 

tas  de  fonte  nascitur  pictatis  .  Cur  ergo  praeponam  salutem 
meam  saluti  populi  innocentis  ?  Nunc  autem  ab  effusione  in- 
noxii  sanguinis  sententiam  crudelitatis  excludam  .  Melius  est 
enim  pro  salute  innocentum  mori  :  quam  per  interitum  eorum 
uitam  recuperare  crudelem  :  quam  tamen  recuperare  incertum 
est  :  cum  certum  sit  recuperata  crudelitas  .  Sic  semper  contra 
hostes  nostra  certamina  in  praeliis  extitisse  noscuntur  :  ut 
reus  esset  legibus  et  capitali  sententiae  subderetur  :  quicum- 
que  aliquem  occidisset  infantem  :  Eratque  hoc  statutum  in 
bello  :  ut  facies  ilia  quam  pubertas  adhuc  non  nouerat  gla- 
dium  euaderet  bellatoris  :  et  uita  incolumis  permaneret  .  Nunc 
itaque  quod  in  hostium  filiis  custoditum  est  :  in  filiis  nostro- 
rum  ciuium  exercebimus  ?  ut  simus  nostris  legibus  rei  atque 
captiuitate  animae  et  conscientiae  captiuabimur  :  qui  pug- 
nando  fideliter  omnium  gentium  meruimus  esse  uictores  ?  Quid 
iuuat  barbaros  superasse  :  si  a  crudelitate  uincamur  ?  Nam 
uicisse  extraneas  nationes  bello  uirtus  est  populorum  :  uincere 
autem  uicia  peccata  et  crimina  uirtus  est  morum  .  In  illis  ergo 
preliis  extitimus  fortiores  illis  :  In  his  autem  nobis  ipsis  for- 
tiores  sumus  :  cum  uincimus  nosmetipsos  :  dum  mala  uota 
nostra  excludimus  :  et  quod  inconsulte  desyderamus  :  con- 
suite  et  utiliter  exercemus  .  hoc  autem  facimus  :  quando  uolun- 
tatibus  deorum  uoluntates  nostras  postponimus  :  et  diuinis 
desyderiis  obedientes  nostra  desyderia  impugnamus  :  et  in  hoc 
certamine  uictos  nos  esse  hac  ratione  gaudemus  :  ut  agnos- 
camus  nos  contra  salutem  nostram  uoluisse  pugnare  .  Nam 
qui  conatur  perpetrare  :  quod  malum  est  :  captiuare  utique 
studet  bonitatem  .  Cum  ergo  isto  fuerit  certamine  superatus  : 
uictoriam  obtinet  uictus  :  quoniam  uictor  perditionem  inuen- 
erat  :  et  malam  captiuitatem  incurrerat  post  triumphum  :  si 
tamen  triumphus  dici  potest  :  quando  pietas  ab  impietate  uin- 
citur  :  et  iusticia  ab  iniusticia  superatur  .  Vincat  ergo  nos 
pietas  in  isto  congressu  .  Vere  enim  omnium  aduersantium 
poterimus  esse  uictores  :  si  a  sola  pietate  uincamur  .  Omnium 
et  enim  uerum  se  esse  dominum  comprobat  :  qui  uerum  se 
seruum  ostenderit  esse  pietatis  .  Cum  ad  istam  conctionem 
omnis  exercitus  omnisque  populus  diutissime  acclamasset  : 


220 


APPENDIX 


[220 


Itemque  conctionatus  dixit  :  lussit  pietas  romana  filios  suis 
matribus  reddi  :  ut  dulcedo  reddita  filiorum  amaritudinem 
lachrimarum  maternarum  obdulcet  .  Et  haec  dicens  iter  quod 
arripuerat  eundi  ad  capitolium  deserens  :  ad  palatium  rediit  . 
Non  solum  autem  filios  reddidit  :  uerum  etiam  dona  simul  am- 
plissima  et  uehicula  infinita  et  annonas  iussit  expendi  :  ut  quae 
flaentes  uenerant  et  lugentes  :  ad  patriam  alienam  :  alacres 
cum  gaudio  ad  ciuitates  suas  reuerterentur  . 

Hac  igiter  transacta  die  nocturno  regis  facto  silentio  :  somni 
tempus  aduenit  :  Et  ecce  adsunt  apostoli  sancti  Petrus  cum 
Paulo  dicentes  :  Nos  sumus  Petrus  et  Paulus  :  quoniam 
flagitiis  termimun  posuisti  :  et  sanguinis  innocentis  efifussi- 
onem  horruisti  :  missi  sumus  a  Christo  lesu  domino  nostro 
dare  tibi  sanitatis  recuperandae  consilium  .  Audi  ergo  monita 
nostra  :  et  omnia  fac  quaecumque  tibi  indicamus  .  Syluester 
episcopus  ciuitatis  Romae  ad  montem  Sirapti  persecutiones 
tuas  fugiens  in  cauernis  petrarum  cum  suis  clericis  latebram 
fouet  .  Hunc  cum  ad  te  adduxeris  :  ipse  tibi  piscinam  pietatis 
ostendet  :  in  quam  dum  te  tertio  merserit  :  omnis  te  ista  de- 
seret  leprae  ualitudo  :  quod  dum  factum  fuerit  :  banc  uicissi- 
tudinem  tuo  saluatori  compensa  :  ut  omnes  iussione  tua  per 
totum  orbem  romanorum  ecclesiae  restaurentur  .  tu  autem  te 
ipsum  in  h?c  parte  purifica  :  ut  relicta  omni  idolorum  super- 
stitione  deum  unum  qui  uerus  et  solus  est  deus  adores  et  ex- 
colas  :  et  ad  eius  uoluntatem  attingas  .  Exurgens  igitur  a 
somno  Constantinus  Augustus  statim  conuocans  eos  qui  ob- 
seruabant  palatium  :  et  secundum  tenorem  somni  sui  misit  ad 
montem  Sirapti  :  ubi  sanctus  Syluester  in  cuiusdam  christiani 
agro  persecutionis  causa  cum  suis  clericis  receptus  lectionibus 
et  orationibus  insistebat  :  At  ubi  se  a  militibus  conuentum 
uidit  :  credidit  ad  martyrii  coronam  se  uocari  :  et  conuersus 
ad  clerum  omnibus  qui  cum  eo  erant  dixit  :  ecce  nunc  tempus 
acceptabile  :  ecce  nunc  dies  salutis  :  aduenit  tempus  quo  nos 
lectio  docuit  operum  nostrorum  assignare  fructum  .  Ecce  domi- 
nus  iterum  spiritaliter  inter  homines  ambulat  :  si  quis  uult 

^  The  paragraphing  is  mine.  Note  how  closely  this  section  is  copied 
in  the  C onstitutum  C onstantini,  cf.  infra,  pp.  230-231. 


APPENDIX 


221 


post  eum  uenire  :  abneget  semetipsum  sibi  :  et  toUat  crucem 
suam :  et  sequatur  eum  :  Ut  haec  dicens  orationem  fecit  omne- 
que  mysterium  adimpleuit  commendans  animam  suam  et  dans 
pacem  omnibus  profectus  est  .  Secuti  sunt  autem  eum  uniuersi 
clerici  cum  presbyteris  triginta  et  diaconibus  quinque  optantes 
passioni  simul  succumbere  :  melius  arbitrantes  cum  illo  pro 
Christo  mori  quam  in  eius  absentia  epulari  :  erat  enim  tran- 
quillo  semper  animo  et  sereno  :  ita  omnes  clericos  diligens  :  et 
sicut  gallina  puUos  suos  euocans  :  ut  circa  uniuersos  carum 
amorem  ostenderet  :  et  omni  hora  eos  monitis  caelestibus  eru- 
diret  .  Vnde  factum  est  :  ut  omnes  eruditionis  sagena  refecti 
passionem  magis  diligerent  quam  timerent  :  et  simul  cum  eo 
alacres  properarent  .  Profectus  itaque  ut  dictum  est  :  peruenit 
ad  regem  .  Tunc  illico  assurgens  augustus  prior  eum  salutauit 
dicens  :  Bene  uenisse  te  gratulamur  :  Cui  sanctus  Syluester 
respondit  :  pax  tibi  et  uictoria  de  caelo  subministretur  :  quern 
cum  rex  alacri  animo  et  uultu  placidissimo  suscepisset  :  omnia 
illi  quae  ei  facta  quaeque  reuelata  sunt  secundum  textum  su- 
perius  compraehensum  exposuit  .  Post  finem  uero  narrationis 
suae  percunctabatur  qui  isti  essent  dii  Petrus  et  Paulus  :  qui 
ilium  uisitassent  :  et  ob  quam  causam  salutis  suae  latebram 
detexissent  .  Cui  sanctus  Syluester  respondit  :  deus  unus 
est  :  quem  colimus  :  qui  totum  mundum  fecit  ex  nihilo  idest 
caelum  et  terram  et  omnia  quae  in  eis  sunt  .  Petrus  autem 
et  Paulus  dii  non  sunt  sed  serui  dei  :  qui  illi  per  fidem  pla- 
centes  hoc  consecuti  sunt  :  ut  arcem  teneant  sanctitatis  :  et 
sic  in  numero  sanctorum  omnium  primi  a  deo  apostoli  facti 
sunt  .  Ergo  ipsi  primi  diuinitatem  domini  nostri  lesu  christi 
filii  dei  gentibus  praedicauerunt  :  et  omnis  ecclesia  ab  ipsis 
initium  sumpsit  .  Hi  expleto  apostolatus  officio  ad  palmam 
martyrii  peruenerunt  :  et  sunt  modo  amici  omnipotentis  dei  . 
Cum  haec  et  his  similia  gratanter  augustus  audisset  :  dixit  : 
peto  utrum  hos  istos  apostolos  habet  aliqua  imago  expressos  : 
ut  in  ipsis  liniamentis  possim  agnoscere  hos  esse  :  quos  me 
reuelatio  docuisset  :  qui  mihi  dixerunt  se  a  deo  missos  esse  . 
Tunc  sanctus  Syluester  iussit  diacono  suo  ut  imaginem  aposto- 
lorum  exhiberet  :  quam  imperator  aspiciens  cum  ingenti  cla- 


222 


APPENDIX 


{222 


more  coepit  dicere  :  nihil  inferius  hac  imagine  in  eorum  ef- 
figie  quorum  uultus  in  uisione  conspexi  .  Hi  ergo  mihi  dixe- 
runt  :  mitte  ad  Syluestrum  episcopum  :  et  hie  tibi  ostendet 
piscinam  pietatis  :  in  qua  cum  lotus  fueris  :  omnium  conse- 
queris  tuorum  uulnerum  sanitatem  .  Cui  sanctus  Syluester  re- 
spondit  :  Audi  me  rex  :  et  salutis  piscinam  necessarian!  hoc 
ordine  require  :  ut  primum  credas  Christum  filium  dei  ideo 
de  caelo  uenisse  :  et  inter  homines  conuersatum  esse  :  ut  istam 
piscinam  credentibus  in  se  manifestaret  :  Cui  Augustus  re- 
spondit  :  ego  nisi  credidissem  :  ad  te  poenitus  non  misissem  . 
Tunc  sanctus  Syluester  dixit  :  exige  a  te  ipso  una  hebdomade 
ieiunium  :  et  deposita  purpura  intra  cubiculum  tuum  :  ibique 
induere  ueste  humili  :  prosterne  cylicium  :  et  confitere  modo 
per  ignorantiam  erroris  factum  :  ut  christianis  persecutionem 
induceres  :  et  ipsum  esse  saluatorem  corporum  et  animarum 
non  solum  loquendo  sed  et  credendo  pronuncia  :  et  poenitere 
multos  sanctos  dei  occidisse  :  et  in  hac  hebdomade  templa  iube 
claudi  :  et  cessare  omnia  sacrificia  idolorum  :  debitores  fisco 
pauperes  laxa  :  carceratos  dimitti  praecipe  :  in  exiliis  et  metal- 
lis  aut  in  quibuscumque  tribulationibus  constitutis  indulgen- 
tiam  dari  constitue  .  lube  per  totam  hebdomada  eleimosynas 
fieri  :  beneficia  etiam  postulantibus  exhiberi  praecipe  :  et 
idoneos  qui  haec  exequantur  constitue  .  Tunc  Constantinus 
imperator  dixit  :  constat  omnes  culturas  homines  in  supersti- 
tione  diligere  :  nec  posse  ibi  diuinitatis  gloriam  inueniri  ubi 
mendax  assertio  deum  dicit  hunc  esse  quem  fecit  .  Nisi  inuisi- 
bilis  iste  est  :  qui  inuocatus  aquis  hanc  uirtutem  concedit  :  ut 
peccata  animarum  abluat  :  et  corporibus  conferat  medicinam  : 
constat  hunc  esse  uerum  deum  :  cuius  apostoli  me  uisitare  dig- 
nati  sunt  :  et  hoc  monere  :  ut  unum  deum  credam  saluatorem 
meum  .  Cum  haec  et  his  similia  Constantinus  Augustus  diceret 
:  imposuit  sanctus  Syluester  manus  super  caput  eius  :  et  bene- 
dicens  eum  :  ac  faciens  cathecuniinum  abiit  .  Post  haec  sanc- 
tus Syluester  conuocatis  omnibus  presbyteris  ac  diaconibus 
cum  uniuerso  clero  indixit  ieiunium  biduanum  omni  ecclesiae 
dicens  :  Si  Nineuitae  in  praedicatione  lonae  per  triduanum 
ieiunium  iram  dei  et  offensam  pro  mentis  debitam  euase- 


223] 


APPENDIX 


223 


runt  :  quanto  magis  nos  in  praedicatione  domini  nostri  lesu 
christi  persecutiones  euadimus  .  lucramur  animas  pacem  dei 
ecclesiis  acquirimus  :  et  idolatriis  finem  imponimus  :  hoc  autem 
facimus  si  ieiuniis  et  orationibus  hoc  a  domino  impetremus  . 
Factum  est  unanimiter  ieiunanitibus  cum  ornamento  orationis 
idest  die  sexta  et  sabbato  in  quo  claudendum  erat  ieiunium 
uespertino  tempore  dixit  Constantino  regi  Syluester  episcopus 
:  audi  me  rex  :  piscina  ergo  haec  omnis  aqua  quae  est  sub 
caelo  siue  maris  siue  fluminum  sine  fontium  sine  paludum  siue 
stagnorum  :  tanta  uirtus  est  nominis  Christi  :  ut  ad  inuoca- 
tionem  eius  peccata  uniuersa  abluat  :  et  salutem  conferat  : 
quam  fides  credentis  exposcit  .  Vocansque  ipsum  secum  Au- 
gustum  ieiunantem  monitisque  instruens  constantia  erigens  : 
fide  certissimum  reddens  :  Vespere  itaque  sabbati  iubet  laua- 
crum  caloris  sui  in  palatio  lateranensi  augustum  ingredi  :  quo 
ingresso  ipse  ad  benedictionem  fontis  accedit  .  Benedicto  ita- 
que fonte  Augustus  introgreditur  :  quem  Syluester  episcopus 
suscipiens  interrogat  :  si  ex  toto  corde  credit  in  patrem  et 
fihum  et  spiritumsanctum  :  qui  cum  credere  se  clara  uoce 
diceret  :  et  pompis  se  diaboli  renunciare  toto  corde  assereret  : 
mersit  confitentis  x\ugusti  in  piscina  totum  corpus  :  atque 
sancto  superfundens  chrismate  dixit  :  qui  mundasti  in  lordane 
lepram  Naaman  Syri  :  et  caeci  nati  oculos  per  aquam  aper- 
uisti  :  et  Paulo  apostolo  per  baptismum  oculos  quos  amiserat 
reddidisti  :  et  fecisti  nobis  ex  persecutore  doctorem  :  tu 
emunda  hunc  seruum  tuum  omnium  terrenorum  principem 
Constantinum  .  Et  sicut  animam  eius  ab  omni  stercorae  peccati 
mundasti  :  ita  corpus  eius  ab  omni  hac  lepra  elephantiae  ablue  : 
ut  ex  persequente  credentem  et  defendentem  se  habere  uirum 
hunc  sancta  tua  ecclesia  glorietur  per  dominum  nostrum  lesum 
christum  filium  tuum  :  qui  tecum  uiuit  et  regnat  in  unitate 
spiritussancti  in  saecula  saeculorum  :  Cumque  omnes  respon- 
dissent  :  amen  :  Subito  quasi  fulgur  lux  intolerabilis  per  me- 
diam  fere  horam  emicuit  :  quae  omnium  et  mentes  exterruit  : 
et  aspectus  obtexit  :  et  ecce  sonus  in  aqua  quasi  sartaginis  stri- 
dentis  exortus  ueluti  piscium  ingentium  Christus  totam  illam 
piscinam  fontis  repletam  ostendit  .  Ex  qua  mundus  surgens 


224 


APPENDIX 


[224 


Constantinus  imperator  Christum  se  uidisse  confessus  est  .  Et 
indutus  uestibus  candidis  prima  die  baptismatis  sui  banc  legem 
dedit  :  Christum  deum  esse  uerum  :  qui  se  mundasset  a  leprae 
periculo  :  et  hunc  debere  coli  ab  omni  orbe  romano  .  Secunda 
die  dedit  legem  ut  qui  Christum  blasphemasse  probatus  fuerit 
puniretur  .  Tertia  die  promulgauit  legem  :  ut  si  quis  christiano 
fecisset  iniuriam  :  omnium  bonorum  suorum  facultatem  dimi- 
diam  amitteret  .  Quarta  die  priuilegium  ecclesiae  romanae 
pontificique  contulit  :  ut  in  toto  orbe  romano  sacerdotes  ita 
hunc  caput  habeant  :  sicut  omnes  indices  regem  .  Quinta  die 
in  quocumque  loco  fuerit  fabricata  ecclesia  consecrationis  suae 
banc  uirtutem  obtineat  :  ut  quicunque  reus  ad  eam  confu- 
gerit  :  a  iudicis  periculo  qui  in  praesenti  fuerit  defensetur  . 
Sexta  die  dedit  legem  :  nulli  intra  muros  cuiuscumque  ciui- 
tatis  dari  licentiam  ecclesiam  construendi  :  nisi  ex  consensu 
praesentis  episcopi  :  quem  sedes  apostolica  probasset  antisti- 
tem  .  Septima  die  omnium  possessionum  regalium  decimas 
manu  iudiciaria  exigi  ad  aedificationem  ecclesiarum  .  Octaua 
die  processit  albis  depositis  totus  mundus  et  saluus  :  et  ueniens 
ad  confessionem  apostoli  Petri  ablato  diademate  capitis  totum 
se  planum  proiiciens  in  faciem  tantam  illic  lachrymarum  ef- 
fudit  multitudinem  :  ut  omnia  ilia  insignia  uestimenta  pur- 
purea infunderentur  :  Dans  uocem  inter  amaras  lachrymas 
quibus  se  errasse  :  se  pecasse  :  se  reum  esse  de  presecutione 
sanctorum  commemorans  :  et  ob  hoc  non  se  esse  dignum  eius 
limina  contingere  :  Cumque  ingenti  gemitu  haec  exclamaret  : 
quantus  ibi  ab  omni  populo  lachrimarum  fusus  est  numerus  : 
quis  memorare  sufficiat  ?  Erat  autem  tale  gaudium  flaetibus 
plenum  :  quale  solet  esse  in  caris  mortuis  suscitatis  aut  in  his  : 
qui  euaserunt  naufragia  :  aut  in  his  qui  uicinos  dentes  euadere 
potuerunt. 

Verum  quoniam  de  his  longum  est  enarrare  :  dicamus 
quid  prima  die  processionis  suae  egit  :  Exuens  se  chlamy- 
dem  et  accipiens  bidentem  :  terram  primus  aperuit  ad  funda- 
mentum  basilicae  construendum  .  Dehinc  in  numero  duodecim 
apostolorum  duodecim  cophinos  plenos  suis  humeris  super- 
positos  baiulauit  de  eodem  loco  :  ubi  fundamentum  basilicae 


APPENDIX 


225 


apostolis  debuerat  funclare  :  et  ita  gaudens  et  exultans  in  car- 
ruca  sua  una  cum  papa  residens  ad  palatium  rediit  .  Altera 
uero  die  similiter  intra  palatium  suum  lateranensem  basilicae 
fabricam  coepit  :  dans  talem  legem  :  quae  in  his  uerbis  conclu- 
ditur  .  Sit  omnibus  notum  :  ita  nos  Christi  cultores  effectos  : 
ut  intra  palatium  nostrum  templum  eius  nomini  construamus  : 
in  quo  populus  christianus  una  nobiscum  conueniens  deitati  eius 
gratias  referamus  .  Hac  itaque  lege  data  constituit  atque  edicto 
pendente  proponi  iussit  :  ut  si  quis  pauper  christianus  fieri 
uoluisset  de  facultatibus  regiis  uestimenta  Candida  et  uiginti 
solidos  de  archa  regis  acciperet  .  Hoc  autem  factum  est  :  ne 
cupiditas  imperaret  fallaciam  :  et  non  credentibus  sed  temp- 
tantibus  istis  donis  proficeret  .  Tanta  autem  eo  anno  credidit 
multitude  :  ut  uirorum  numerus  baptizatorum  ad  duodecim 
millia  tenderetur  excepta  mulierum  populositate  et  infantium  . 
Sic  quoque  ex  uno  latere  crescebat  dei  populus  in  gloria  :  ut 
ex  altero  paganis  confusio  nasceretur  .  Igitur  cum  et  senatorum 
caterua  huic  relligioni  sanctae  fidem  nuUus  adhiberet  :  nec  ob 
hoc  irasci  alicui  .  Augustum  papa  permitteret  :  praecepit  Au- 
gustus sibi  in  basilicam  excelsum  tribunal  statui  :  et  senatum 
ac  populum  romanum  hac  uoce  affatus  est  :  profanae  dissen- 
siones  mentium  ideo  nulla  ratione  salubre  consilium  sumunt  : 
quia  profunda  ignorantiae  circundantur  caligine  :  et  nuUus  eas 
clarus  ac  serenus  ueritatis  splendor  illuminat  .  Aperiendi  sunt 
ergo  lumine  scientiae  oculi  animorum  et  diligenti  est  examina- 
tione  cernendum  :  istos  deos  nec  dici  debere  :  nec  credi  :  qui 
ab  hominibus  facti  noscuntur  .  Non  enim  dii  sunt  :  sed  homi- 
nes magis  ipsi  eorum  dii  dici  possunt  :  quos  ipsi  plasmauerunt . 
Denique  si  quid  aliquo  casu  in  his  laesum  fuerit  :  homines  qui 
sua  eos  arte  fecerunt  :  sua  eos  nihilominus  arte  restaurant  . 
Sunt  ergo  homines  :  ut  dixi  :  dii  eorum  qui  dum  non  essent 
eos  fecerunt  :  et  dum  fecissent  :  laesi  ab  eis  restaurantur  . 
Vnde  coniecturam  summens  mecuni  omnibus  ad  culturam  ueri 
dei  exhibeo  :  quod  in  me  quoque  factum  aspicitis  ipsi  et  pro- 
batis  :  Nisi  enim  ipse  esset  deus  Christus  :  qui  me  fecit  :  non 
utique  quod  ab  alio  factum  fuerat  restaurare  ualuisset  .  Pro- 
batur  ergo  humanum  genus  huius  dei  esse  figmentum  :  qui 


226 


APPENDIX 


[226 


restaurat  lapsum  :  fractum  solidat  sublimat  allisum  .  Sicut 
uniuersa  ista  idola  quae  hominum  figmenta  sunt  :  ideo  homi- 
num  auxilio  cum  laesa  fuerint  reparantur  .  Habeant  itaque 
habeant  iam  finem  isti  errores  .  abdicetur  ista  superstitio  : 
quam  ignorantia  concepit  :  stulticia  nutriuit  :  et  aluit  .  Adore- 
tur  deus  solus  :  qui  unus  et  uerus  regnat  in  caelis  .  Desinamus 
hos  colere  :  a  quibus  saluari  non  possumus  :  et  quos  laesos  ipsi 
saluamus  .  Cessemus  ab  eis  flagitare  nostri  custodiam  :  quos 
nostri  custodia  tuemur  ne  pereant  .  Quid  miserius  quam  aes 
lapidesque  adorare  et  ferrum  ?  Sit  itaque  omnibus  gratum  : 
quod  sum  a  Christo  quem  negabam  pristinae  redditus  sanitati  : 
et  ab  isto  errore  ipso  domino  lesu  christo  auxiliante  cessamus  . 
Et  quoniam  sapientia  romanorum  non  fallitur  :  istum  deum 
excolat  :  a  quo  ipsa  custodiatur  :  non  quem  ipsa  custodiat  . 
Verum  ne  longa  oratio  omnes  uos  intentos  extendat  :  quid 
constituendum  censui  breuiter  pandam  :  Patere  uolumus  chris- 
tianis  ecclesias  :  ut  priuilegia  quae  sacerdotes  templorum  ha- 
bere noscuntur  :  antistites  christianae  legis  assumant  .  Vt 
autem  notum  sit  uniuerso  orbi  romano  uero  deo  et  domino  lesu 
christo  nos  inclinare  ceruices  :  intra  palatium  meum  ecclesiam 
Christo  arripui  construendam  :  ut  uniuersitas  hominum  com- 
probet  :  nulla  dubietatis  in  corde  meo  uel  praeteriti  erroris  re- 
manisse  uestigia  :  Cumque  in  isto  uerbo  fuisset  eloquium  : 
uox  populorum  per  tria  horarum  spatia  haec  sunt  :  qui  Chris- 
tum negant  male  depereant  :  quia  ipse  est  uerus  deus  .  Dictum 
est  tricies  .  Item  unus  deus  christianorum  .  Dictum  est  quad- 
ragies  .  Item  templa  claudantur  :  et  ecclesiae  pateant  .  Dictum 
est  decies  .  Item  qui  Christum  non  colunt  :  inimici  Augustorum 
sunt  .  Dictum  est  quadragies  .  Item  qui  saluauit  Augustum  : 
Ipse  est  uerus  deus  .  Dictum  est  tricies  .  Item  qui  Christum 
non  colunt  :  hostes  romanorum  sunt  .  Dictum  est  decies  .  Item 
qui  Christum  colit  :  semper  uicit  :  Dictum  est  quadragies  . 
Item  sacerdotes  templorum  ab  urbe  pellantur  .  Dictum  est  quad- 
ragies .  Item  qui  adhuc  sacrificant  diis  :  ab  urbe  pellantur  . 
Dictum  est  terdecies  .  Item  iube  :  ut  hodie  repellantur  .  Dictum 
est  quadragies  .  Ad  banc  uocem  Imperator  silentium  petiit  : 
quo  facto  sic  allocutus  est  populum  :  Inter  diuina  humanaque 


227]  APPENDIX  227 

seruitia  hoc  interest  :  ut  humana  seruitia  coacta  sint  :  diuina 
autem  uoluntaria  comprobentur  .  Deus  enim  quia  mente  coli- 
tur  :  et  sincero  hominis  ueneratur  affectu  :  spontanea  eius 
debet  esse  cultura  .  In  hoc  enim  apparet  :  quia  uerus  deus  est  : 
quod  per  tanta  saecula  contemptoribus  suis  non  iratus  finem 
imposuit  :  sed  propitium  se  esse  qui  coli  debeat  demonstrauit 
indulgendo  crimina  :  et  salutem  animabus  et  corporibus  con- 
ferendo  .  Sit  ergo  omnibus  notum  :  non  necessitate  coactos  : 
sed  suo  iudicio  hberos  posse  fieri  christianos  nec  humanum 
metuentes  imperium  ad  dei  culturam  accedere  ahquos  opor- 
tere  :  sed  rationabih  consyderatione  magis  rogare  :  uti  chris- 
tianorum  numero  appHcentur  ab  iis  :  q'ui  huic  sacratissimae 
legi  deseruiunt  .  lustum  et  enim  uerumque  conspicimus  :  ut 
sicut  petentibus  culpa  est  :  si  negetur  :  ita  non  petentibus  si 
tradatur  iniquum  .  Nec  hoc  aliqui  metuant  :  quod  a  nostra 
gratia  diuellantur  :  si  christiani  esse  noluerint  .  nostra  enim 
claementia  talis  est  :  ut  opere  non  mutetur  .  Vnde  hoc  consy- 
derandum  est  :  quod  magis  nobis  adhaerebunt  in  amiciciis  ii  : 
qui  spontanee  ad  christianam  legem  uenire  uoluerint  .  Tunc 
omnibus  populis  et  christianis  et  paganis  banc  legem  laudan- 
tibus  :  et  uitam  Augusto  optantibus  iteratus  clamor  populi 
factus  est  diutissimus  .  Et  cum  finis  huius  rei  factus  fuisset  : 
reuerteni  Augusto  ad  palatium  tota  ciuitas  cereis  lampadibus- 
que  repleta  coronata  est  :  erat  enim  omnibus  gaudium  :  quo- 
niam  lex  talis  processerat  :  quae  nullum  ad  culturam  impell- 
eret  :  nullum  a  Christi  cultura  repelleret  .  Fit  uox  laeticiae  per 
uniuersas  ecclesias  .  honorantur  uniuersa  sepulchra  sanc- 
torum :  omnesque  contessores  qui  cathenati  ad  diuersa  fuer- 
ant  exilia  tracti  :  cum  gloria  et  honore  regio  ad  patrias  pro- 
prias  reuocati  amici  effecti  sunt  regis  .  Caetera  quae  facta 
sunt  uel  dicta  praetero  :  ne  pro  ipsa  prol3^xitate  fastidium 
lector  incurrat  :  sunt  enim  alia  plura  et  utiliora  :  quae  prae- 
terire  non  debeo  .  Exigit  enim  haec  historia  :  ut  ad  Helenam 
imperatoris  matrem  flectam  articulum  :  et  hoc  ordine  ad  finem 
huius  operis  attingam.^ 

^  Then  follows  a  long  account  of  the  conversion  of  Helena  through 
a  disputation  between  Sylvester  and  Jewish  rabbis,  which  forms  a 
regular  element  in  the  oriental  form  of  the  Sylvester  legend,  cf.  supra, 
pp.  163-164. 


228 


APPENDIX 


[228 


II 

Earliest  Text  of  the  Constitutum  Constantini,  or 
Donation  of  Constatine  ^ 

EXEMPLAR  CONSTITVTI  DOMNI  CONSTANTINI  IMPERATORIS 

[Reprinted  from  edition  by  Karl  Zeumer,  in  Festgahe  fiir 
Rudolf  von  Gneist  (Julius  Springer,  Berlin,  1888,  8  marks), 
pp.  47-59,  by  permission  of  the  publishers.] 

In  nomine  sanctae  et  individuae  Trinitatis,  Patris  scilicet  et 
Filii  et  Spiritus  sancti.  Imperator  Caesar  Flavius  Constan- 
tinus  in  Christo  Jesu,  uno  ex  eadem  sancta  Trinitate  salvatore 
domino  Deo  nostro,  fidelis,  mansuetus,  maximus,  beneficus, 
Alamannicus,  Gothicus,  Sarmaticus,  Germanicus,  Brittannicus, 
Hunicus,  pius,  felix,  victor  ac  triumphator,  semper  augustus, 
sanctissimo  ac  beatissimo  patri  patrum  Silvestrio,  urbis  Romae 
episcopo  et  pape,  atque  omnibus  eius  successoribus,  qui  in 
sede  beati  Petri  usque  in  finem  saeculi  sessuri  sunt,  pontificibus, 
nec  non  et  omnibus  reverentissimis  et  Deo  amabilibus  catholicis 
episcopis,  eidem  sacrosanctae  Romanae  ecclesiae  per  hanc 
nostram  imperialem  constitutionem  subiectis  in  universo  orbe 
terrarum,  nunc  et  in  posteris  cunctis  retro  temporibus  con- 
stitutis,  gratia,  pax,  caritas,  gaudium,  longanimitas,  miseri- 
cordia,  a  Deo  patre  omnipotente  et  Jesu  Christo  filio  eius  et 
Spiritu  sancto  cum  omnibus  vobis. 

Ea  quae  salvator  et  redemptor  noster  dominus  Jesus 
Christus,  altissimi  Patris  filius,  per  suos  sanctos  apostolos 
Petrum  et  Paulum,  interveniente  patre  nostro  Silvestrio  summo 
pontifice  et  universali  papa,  mirabiliter  operari  dignatus  est, 
liquida  enarratione  per  huius  nostrae  imperialis  institutionis 
paginam  ad  agnitionem  omnium  populorum  in  universo  orbe 
terrarum  nostra  studuit  propagare  mansuetissima  serenitas. 
Primum  quidem  fidem  nostram,  quam  a  prelato  beatissimo 
patre  et  oratore  nostro  Silvestrio  universali  pontifice  edocti 

1  Cf.  supra,  pp.  175-177. 


229] 


APPENDIX 


229 


sumus,  intima  cordis  confessione  ad  instruendas  omnium  ves- 
trum  mentes  proferentes  et  ita  demum  misericordiam  Dei  super 
nos  diffusam  adnuntiantes. 

3.  Nosse  enim  vos  volumus,  sicut  per  anteriorem  nostram 
sacram  pragmaticam  iussionem  significavimus,  nos  a  culturis 
idolorum,  simulacris  mutis  et  surdis  manufactis,  diabolicis  com- 
positionibus  atque  ab  omnibus  Satanae  pompis  recessisse  et  ad 
integram  Christianorum  fidem,  quae  est  vera  lux  et  vita  per- 
petua,  pervenisse,  credentes,  iuxta  id  quod  nos  isdem  almificus 
summus  pater  et  doctor  noster  Silvester  instruit  pontifex,  in 
Deum  patrem,  omnipotentem  factorem  caeli  et  terrae,  visi- 
bilium  omnium  et  invisibilium,  et  in  Jesum  Christum,  filium 

eius  unicum,  dominum  Deum  nostrum,  per  quem  creata  sunt  •  ^ 
omnia,  et  in  Spiritum  sanctum,  dominum  et  vivificatorem  uni- 
versae  creaturae.  Hos  Patrem  et  Filium  et  Spiritum  sanctum 
confitemur,  ita  ut  in  Trinitate  perfecta  et  plenitudo  sit  divini- 
tatis  et  unitas  potestatis.  Pater  Deus,  Filius  Deus  et  Spiritus 
sanctus  Deus,  et  tres  unum  sunt  in  Jesu  Christo. 

4.  Tres  itaque  formae,  sed  una  potestas.  Nam  sapiens  retro 
semper  Deus  edidit  ex  se,  per  quod  semper  erant  gignenda 
secula,  verbum,  et  quando  eodem  solo  suae  sapientiae  verbo 
universam  ex  nihilo  formavit  creaturam,  cum  eo  erat,  cuncta 
suo  arcano  componens  mysterio.  Igitur  perfectis  caelorum 
virtutibus  et  universis  terrae  materiis,  pio  sapientiae  suae  nutu 
ad  imaginem  et  similitudinem  suam  primum  de  limo  terrae 
fingens  hominem,  hunc  in  paradyso  posuit  voluptatis ;  quem 
antiquus  serpens  et  hostis  invidens,  diabolus,  per  amarissimum 
ligni  vetiti  gustum  exulem  ab  eisdem  efficit  gaudiis,  eoque 
expulso,  non  desinit  sua  venenosa  multis  modis  protelare 
iacula,  ut  a  via  veritatis  humanum  abstrahens  genus  idolorum 
culturae,  videlicet  creaturae  et  non  creatori  deservire  suadeat, 
quatenus  per  hos  eos,  quos  suis  valuerit  inretire  insidiis  secum 
aeterno  efficiat  concremandos  supplicio.  Sed  Deus  noster, 
misertus  plasmae  suae,  dirigens  sanctos  suos  prophetas,  per 
quos  lumen  futurae  vitae,  adventum  videlicet  filii  sui,  domini 
Dei  et  salvatoris  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  adnuntians,  misit  eundem 
unigenitum  suum  filium  et  sapientiae  verbum.    Qui  descendens 


230  APPENDIX  [-230 

de  celis  propter  nostram  salutem  natus  de  Spiritu  sancto  et 
Maria  virgine,  verbum  caro  factum  est  et  habitavit  in  nobis. 
Non  amisit,  quod  fuerat,  sed  coepit  esse,  quod  non  erat,  Deum 
perfectum  et  hominem  perfectum,  ut  Deus  mirabilia  perficiens, 
ut  homo  humanas  passiones  sustinens.  Ita  verum  hominem 
et  verum  Deum,  predicante  patre  nostro  Silvestrio  sunimo 
pontifice,  intelHgimus,  ut  verum  Deum  verum  hominem  fuisse 
nullo  modo  ambigamus ;  electisque  duodecim  apostoHs,  mira- 
culis  coram  eis  et  inumerabilis  populi  multitudine  choruscavit. 
Confitemur  eundem  dominum  Jesum  Christum  adimplesse 
legem  et  prophetas,  passum,  crucifixum,  secundum  scripturas 
tertia  die  a  mortuis  resurrexisse,  adsum.ptum  in  ceHs  atque 
sedentem  ad  dexteram  Patris,  inde  venturum  iudicare  vivos 
et  mortuos,  cuius  regni  non  erit  finis. 

5.  Haec  est  enim  fides  nostra  orthodoxa  a  beatissimo  patre 
nostro  Silvestrio  summo  pontifice  nobis  prolata;  exhortantes 
idcirco  omnem  populum  et  diversas  gentium  nationes  hanc 
fidem  tenere,  colere  ac  predicare  et  in  sanctae  Trinitatis 
nomine  baptismi  gratiam  consequi  et  dominum  Jesum  Chris- 
tum salvatorem  nostrum,  qui  cum  Patre  et  Spiritu  sancto  per 
infinita  vivit  et  regnat  saecula,  quem  Silvester,  beatissimus 
pater  noster  universalis  predicat  pontifex,  corde  devoto 
adorare. 

6.  Ipse  enim  dominus  Deus  noster,  misertus  mihi  peccatori, 
misit  sanctos  suos  apostolos  ad  visitandum  nos,  et  lumen  sui 
splendoris  infulsit  nobis  et  abstracto  a  tenebris  ad  veram  lucem 
et  agnitionem  veritatis  me  pervenisse  gratulamini.  Nam  dum 
valida  squaloris  lepra  totam  mei  corporis  invasisset  carnem. 
et  multorum  medicorum  convenientium  cura  adhiberetur,  nec 
unius  quidem  promerui  saluti,  ad  haec  advenerunt  sacerdotes 
Capitolii,  dicentes  mihi  debere  fieri  fontem  in  Capitolio  et 
complere  hunc  innocentium  infantium  sanguine  et  calente  in  eo 
loto  me  posse  mundari.  Et  secundum  eorum  dicta  aggre- 
gatis  plurimis  innocentibus  infantibus,  dum  vellent  sacrilegi 
paganorum  sacerdotes  eos  mactari  et  ex  eorum  sanguine 
fontem  repleri,  cernens  serenitas  nostra  lacrimas  matrum 
eorum,  ilico  exhorrui  facinus,  misertusque  eis,  proprios  illis 


231]  APPENDIX  231 

restitui  precipimus  filios  suos,  datisque  vehiculis  et  donis 
concessis,  gaudentes  ad  propria  relaxavimus. 

7.  ^  Eadem  igitur  transacta  die,  nocturna  nobis  facta  silentia, 
dum  somni  tempus  advenisset,  adsunt  apostoli,  sanctus  Petrus 
et  Paulus,  dicentes  mihi :  '  Quoniam  flagitiis  posuisti  terminum 
et  effusionem  sanguinis  innocentis  orruisti,  missi  sumus  a 
Christo  domino  Deo  nostro,  dare  tibi  sanitatis  recuperande 
consilium.  Audi  ergo  monita  nostra  et  fac  quodcumque  indi- 
camus  tibi.  Silvester  episcopus  civitatis  Romae  ad  montem 
Seraptem  persecutiones  tuas  fugiens  in  cavernis  petrarum  cum 
suis  clericis  latebram  fovet.  Hunc  cum  ad  te  adduxeris,  ipse 
tibi  piscinam  pietatis  ostendet,  in  qua  dum  te  tertio  merserit, 
omnis  te  valitudo  ista  deseret  leprae.  Quod  dum  factum 
fuerit,  banc  vicissitudinem  tuo  salvatori  conpensa,  ut  omnes 
iussu  tuo  per  totum  orbem  ecclesiae  restaurentur,  te  autem 
ipsum  in  hac  parte  purifica,  ut,  relicta  omni  superstitione 
idolorum,  Deum  vivum  et  verum,  qui  solus  est  et  verus,  adores 
et  excolas,  ut  ad  eius  voluntatem  adtingas.' 

8.  Exsurgens  igitur  a  somno  protinus  iuxta  id,  quod  a 
Sanctis  apostolis  ammonitus  sum,  peregi,  advocatoque  eodem 
precipuo  et  almifico  patre  et  inluminatore  nostro  Silvestrio 
universali  papa,  omnia  a  Sanctis  apostolis  mihi  precepta  edixi 
verba,  percunctatique  eum  sumus,  qui  isti  dii  essent:  Petrus 
et  Paulus?  Ille  vero,  non  eos  decs  vere  dici,  sed  apostolos 
salvatoris  nostri  domini  Dei  Jesu  Christi.  Et  rursum  interro- 
gare  coepimus  eundem  beatissimum  papam,  utrum  istorum 
apostolorum  imaginem  expressam  haberet,  ut  ex  pictura  dis- 
ceremus  hos  esse,  quos  revelatio  docuerat.  Tunc  isdem  vener- 
abilis  pater  imagines  eorundem  apostolorum  per  diaconem 
suum  exhiberi  precepit,  quas  dum  aspicerem  et  eorum,  quos 
in  somno  videram  figuratos  in  ipsis  imaginibus  cognovissem 
vultus,  ingenti  clamore  coram  omnibus  satrapibus  meis  con- 
fessus  sum,  eos  esse,  quos  in  somno  videram. 

9.  Ad  haec  beatissimus  isdem  Silvester  pater  noster,  urbis 
Romae   episcopus,   indixit   nobis   penitentiae   tempus  intro 

1  The  almost  exact  copying  of  this  paragraph  from  the  correspond- 
ing section  of  the  Vita  Silvestri  is  noteworthy.    Cf.  supra,  p.  220. 


232  APPENDIX  [232 

palatium  nostrum  Lateranense  in  uno  cilicio,  ut  omnia,  quae 
a  nobis  impie  peracta  atque  iniuste  disposita  fuerant,  vigiliis, 
ieiuniis  atque  lacrimis  et  orationibus  apud  dominum  Deum 
nostrum  Jesum  Christum  salvatorem  impetraremus.  Deinde 
per  manus  impositionem  clericorum  usque  ad  ipsum  presulem 
veni,  ibique  abrenuntians  Satanae  pompis  et  operibus  eius  vel 
universis  idolis  manufactis,  credere  me  in  Deum  patrem,  omni- 
potentem  factorem  caeli  et  terrae,  visibilium  et  invisibilium,  et 
in  Jesum  Christum  fiHum  eius  unicum,  dominum  nostrum,  qui 
natus  est  de  Spiritu  sancto  et  Maria  virgine,  spontanea  volun- 
tate  coram  omni  populo  professus  sum,  benedictoque  fonte 
illic  me  trina  mersione  unda  salutis  purificavit.  Ibi  enim, 
me  posito  fontis  gremio,  manu  de  'caelo  me  contingente  propriis 
vidi  ocuHs,  de  qua  mundus  exsurgens,  ab  omni  me  leprae 
squalore  mundatum  agnoscite.  Levatoque  me  de  venerabili 
fonte,  indutus  vestibus  candidis,  septemformis  sancti  Spiritus 
in  me  consignatione  adhibuit  beati  chrismatis  unctionem  et 
vexillum  sanctae  crucis  in  mea  fronte  linivit  dicens :  '  Signat 
te  Deus  sigillo  fidei  suae  in  nomine  Patris  et  Fihi  et  Spiritus 
sancti  in  consignatione  fidei '.  Cunctus  clerus  respondit : 
'Amen  '.  Adiecit  presul :  '  Pax  tibi 
10.  Prima  itaque  die  post  perceptum  sacri  baptismatis  mysterium 
et  post  curationem  corporis  mei  a  leprae  squalore  agnovi,  non 
esse  alium  Deum  nisi  Patrem  et  Filium  et  Spiritum  sanctum, 
quem  beatissimus  Silvester  papa  predicat,  trinitatem  in  unitate, 
unitatem  in  trinitate.  Nam  omnes  dii  gentium,  quos  usque 
actenus  colui,  demonia,  opera  hominum  manu  facta  conpro- 
bantur,  etenim  quantam  potestatem  isdem  Salvator  noster  suo 
apostolo  beato  Petro  contulerit  in  caelo  ac  terra  lucidissime 
nobis  isdem  venerabilis  pater  edixit,  dum  fidelem  eum  in  sua 
interrogatione  inveniens  ait :  '  Tu  es  Petrus,  et  super  hanc 
petram  aedificabo  ecclesiam  meam,  et  porte  inferi  non  pre- 
valebunt  adversus  eam  '".  Advertite  potentes  et  aurem  cordis 
intendite,  quid  bonus  magister  et  dominus  suo  discipulo 
adiunxit  inquiens :  '  et  tibi  dabo  claves  regni  caelorum ;  quod- 
cumque  ligaveris  super  terram,  erit  ligatum  et  in  caelis,  et 
quodcumque  solveris  super  terram,  erit  solutum  et  in  caelis/ 


APPENDIX  233 

Mirum  est  hoc  valde  et  gloriosum  in  terra  ligare  et  solvere,  et 
in  caelo  ligatum  et  solutum  esse. 

Et  dum  hec  predicante  beato  Silvestrio  agnoscerem  et  bene- 
ficiis  ipsius  beati  Petri  integre  me  sanitati  comperi  restitutum, 
utile  iudicavimus  una  cum  omnibus  nostris  satrapibus  et  uni- 
verso  senatu,  optimatibus  etiam  et  cuncto  populo  Romano, 
gloriae  imperii  nostri  subiacenti,  ut,  sicut  in  terris  vicarius  filii 
Dei  esse  videtur  constitutus,  etiam  et  pontifices,  qui  ipsius 
principis  apostolorum  gerunt  vices,  principatus  potestatem 
amplius,  quam  terrena  imperialis  nostrae  serenitatis  mansue- 
tudo  habere  videtur  concessam,  a  nobis  nostroque  imperio  ob- 
tineant ;  eligentes  nobis  ipsum  principem  apostolorum  vel  eius 
vicarios  firmos  apud  Deum  adesse  patronos.  Et  sicut  nostra 
est  terrena  imperalis  potentia,  eius  sacrosanctam  Romanam 
ecclesiam  decrevimus  veneranter  honorare,  et  amplius  quam 
nostrum  imperium  et  terrenum  thronum  sedem  sacratissimam 
beati  Petri  gloriose  exaltari,  tribuentes  ei  potestatem  et  gloriae 
dignitatem  atque  vigorem  et  honorificentiam  imperialem. 

Atque  decernentes  sancimus,  ut  principatum  teneat,  tam 
super  quattuor  precipuas  sedes  Antiochenam,  Alexandrinam, 
Constantinopolitanam  et  Hierosolimitanam,  quamque  etiam 
super  omnes  universo  orbe  terrarum  Dei  ecclesias ;  et  ponti- 
fex,  qui  pro  tempore  ipsius  sacrosanctae  Romanae  ecclesiae 
extiterit,  celsior  et  princeps  cunctis  sacerdotibus  totius  mundi 
exsistat,  et  eius  iudicio,  quaeque  ad  cultum  Dei  vel  fidei  Chris- 
tianorum  stabilitate  procuranda  fuerint,  disponantur.  Justum 
quippe  est,  ut  ibi  lex  sancta  caput  teneat  principatus,  ubi  sanc- 
tarum  legum  institutor,  Salvator  noster,  beatum  Petrum  apos- 
tolatus  obtinere  precepit  cathedram,  ubi  et  crucis  patibulum 
sustenens  beate  mortis  sumpsit  poculum  suique  magistri  et 
domini  imitator  apparuit,  et  ibi  gentes  pro  Christi  nominis  con- 
fessione  colla  flectant,  ubi  eorum  doctor  beatus  Paulus  apos- 
tolus pro  Christo  extenso  collo  martyrio  coronatus  est ;  illic 
usque  in  finem  quaerant  doctorem,  ubi  sanctum  doctoris  quies- 
cit  corpus,  et  ibi  proni  ac  humiliati  caelestis  regis,  Dei  salva- 
toris  nostri  Jesus  Christi,  famulentur  officio,  ubi  superbi  terreni 
regis  serviebant  imperio. 


233] 


234  APPENDIX  '  [234 

Interea  nosse  volumus  omnem  populum  universarum  gen- 
tium ac  nationum  per  totum  orbem  terrarum,  construxisse  nos 
intro  palatium  nostrum  Lateranense  eidem  salvatori  nostro 
domino  Deo  Jesu  Christo  ecclesiam  a  fundamentis  cum  bap- 
tisterio,  et  duodecim  nos  sciatis  de  eius  fundamentis  secundum 
numerum  duodecim  apostolorum  cofinos  terra  onustatos  pro- 
priis  asportasse  humeris ;  quam  sacrosanctam  ecclesiam  caput 
et  verticem  omnium  ecclesiarum  in  universo  orbe  terrarum 
dici,  coli,  venerari  ac  predicari  sancimus,  sicut  per  alia  nostra 
imperialia  decreta  statuimus.  Construximus  itaque  et  ec- 
clesias  beatorum  Petri  et  Pauli,  principum  apostolorum,  quas 
auro  et  argento  locupletavimus,  ubi  et  sacratissima  eorum  cor- 
pora cum  magno  honore  recondentes,  thecas  ipsorum  ex  elec- 
tro, cui  nulla  fortitudo  prevalet  elementorum,  construximus  et 
crucem  ex  auro  purissimo  et  gemmis  preciosis  per  singulas 
eorum  thecas  posuimus  et  clavis  aureis  confiximus,  quibus  pro 
concinnatione  luminariorum  possessionum  predia  contulimus, 
et  rebus  diversis  eas  ditavimus,  et  per  nostras  imperialiiim 
iussionum  sacras  tam  in  oriente  quam  in  occidente  vel  etiam 
septentrionali  et  meridiana  plaga,  videlicet  in  Judea,  Grecia, 
Asia,  Thracia,  Africa  et  Italia  vel  diversis  insulis  nostram 
largitatem  eis  concessimus,  ea  prorsus  ratione,  ut  per  manus 
beatissimi  patris  nostri  Silvestrii  pontificis  successorumque 
eius  omnia  disponantur. 

Gaudeat  enim  una  nobiscum  omnis  populus  et  gentium 
nationes  in  universo  orbe  terrarum ;  exortantes  omnes,  ut  Deo 
nostro  et  salvatori  Jesu  Christo  immensas  una  nobiscum  re- 
feratis  grates,  quoniam  ipse  Deus  in  caelis  desuper  et  in  terra 
deorsum,  qui  nos  per  suos  sanctos  visitans  apostolos  sanctum 
baptismatis  sacramentum  percipere  et  corporis  sanitatem 
dignos  efficit.  Pro  quo  concedimus  ipsis  Sanctis  apostolis, 
dominis  meis,  beatissimis  Petro  et  Paulo  et  per  eos  etiam  beato 
Silvestrio  patri  nostro,  summo  pontifici  et  universali  urbis 
Romae  papae,  et  omnibus  eius  successoribus  pontificibus,  qui 
usque  in  finem  mundi  in  sede  beati  Petri  erunt  sessuri,  atque 
de  presenti  contradimus  palatium  imperii  nostri  Lateranense, 
quod  omnibus  in  toto  orbe  terrarum  prefertur  atque  precellet 


235]  APPENDIX  235 

palatiis,  deinde  diadema  videlicet  coronam  capitis  nostri  simul- 
que  frigium  nec  non  et  superhumeralem,  videlicet  lorum,  qui 
imperiale  circumdare  adsolet  collum,  verum  etiam  et  clamidem 
purpuream  atque  tunicam  coccineam  et  omnia  imperialia  in- 
dumenta seu  et  dignitatem  imperialium  presedentium  equitum, 
conferentes  etiam  et  imperialia  sceptra,  simulque  et  conta  atque 
signa,  banda  etiam  et  diversa  ornamenta  imperialia  et  omnem 
processionem  imperialis  culminis  et  gloriam  potestatis  nostrae. 

15-  Viris  enim  reverentissimis,  clericis  diversis  ordinibus  eidem 
sacrosanctae  Romanae  ecclesiae  servientibus  illud  culmen, 
singularitatem,  potentiam  et  precellentiam  habere  sancimus, 
cuius  amplissimus  noster  senatus  videtur  gloria  adornari,  id 
est  patricios  atque  consules  efficii,  nec  non  et  ceteris  dignitati- 
bus  imperialibus  eos  promulgantes  decorari ;  et  sicut  imperialis 
militia,  ita  et  clerum  sacrosanctae  Romanae  ecclesiae  ornari 
decernimus;  et  quemadmodum  imperialis  potentia  officiis 
diversis,  cubiculariorum  nempe  et  ostiariorum  atque  omnium 
excubiorum  ornatu,  ita  et  sanctam  Romanam  ecclesiam  de- 
corari volumus;  et  ut  amplissime  pontificalis  decus  prefulgeat, 
decernimus  et  hoc,  ut  clerici  eiusdem  sanctae  Romanae  ec- 
clesiae mappulis  ex  lenteaminibus,  id  est  candidissimo  colore, 
eorum  decorari  equos  et  ita  equitari,  et  sicut  noster  senatus 
calciamenta  uti  cum  udonibus,  id  est  candido  linteamine  in- 
lustrari:  ut  sicut  celestia  ita  et  terrena  ad  laudem  Dei  de- 
corentur ;  pre  omnibus  autem  licentiam  tribuentes  ipso  sanctis- 
simo  patri  nostro  Silvestrio,  urbis  Romae  episcopo  et  papae, 
et  omnibus,  qui  post  eum  in  successum  et  perpetuis  tempori- 
bus  advenerint,  beatissimis  pontificibus,  pro  honore  et  gloria 
Christi  Dei  nostri  in  eadem  magna  Dei  catholica  et  apos- 
tolica  ecclesia  ex  nostra  synclitu,  quem  placatus  proprio  con- 
silio  clericare  voluerit  et  in  numero  religiosorum  clericorum 
connumerare,  nullum  ex  omnibus  presumentem  superbe  agere. 

16.  Decrevimus  itaque  et  hoc,  ut  isdem  venerabilis  pater  noster 
Silvester,  summus  pontifex,  vel  omnes  eius  successores  ponti- 
fices  diadema,  videlicet  coronam,  quam  ex  capiti  nostro  illi 
concessimus,  ex  auro  purissimo  et  gemmis  pretiosis  uti  de- 
beant  et  eorum  capite  ad  laudem  Dei  pro  honore  beati  Petri 


236  APPENDIX  [236 

gestare ;  ipse  vero  sanctissimus  papa  super  coronam  clericatus, 
quam  gerit  ad  gloriam  beati  Petri,  omnino  ipsa  ex  auro  non 
est  passus  uti  corona,  frygium  vero  candido  nitore  splendidam 
resurrectionem  dominicam  designans  eius  sacratissimo  vertici 
manibus  nostris  posuimus,  et  tenentes  frenum  equi  ipsius  pro 
reverentia  beati  Petri  stratoris  officium  illi  exhibuimus; 
statuentes,  eundem  frygium  omnes  eius  successores  pontifices 
singulariter  uti  in  processionibus. 

17.  Ad  imitationem  imperii  nostri,  unde  ut  non  pontificalis  apex 
vilescat,  sed  magis  amplius  quam  terreni  imperii  dignitas  et 
gloriae  potentia  decoretur,  ecce  tarn  palatium  nostrum,  ut 
prelatum  est,  quamque  Romae  urbis  et  omnes  Italiae  seu  occi- 
dentalium  regionum  provintias,  loca  et  civitates  sepefato 
J^eatissimo  pontifici,  patri  nostro  Silvestrio,  universali  papae, 
contradentes  atque  relinquentes  eius  vel  successorum  ipsius 
pontificum  potestati  et  ditioni  firma  imperiali  censura  per  hanc 
nostram  divalem  sacram  et  pragmaticam  constitutum  decerni- 
mus  disponendam  atque  iure  sanctae  Romanae  ecclesiae  con- 
cedimus  permanendam. 

18.  Unde  congruum  prospeximus,  nostrum  imperium  et  regni 
potestatem  orientalibus  transferri  ac  transmutari  regionibus 
et  in  Byzantiae  provintia  in  optimo  loco  nomini  nostro  civita- 
tem  aedificari  et  nostrum  illic  constitui  imperium;  quoniam, 
ubi  principatus  sacerdotum  et  Christianae  religionis  caput  ab 
imperatore  celeste  constitutum  est,  justum  non  est,  ut  illic 
imperator  terrenus  habeat  potestatem. 

19.  Hec  vero  omnia,  que  per  hanc  nostram  imperialem  sacram 
et  per  alia  divalia  decreta  statuimus  atque  confirmavimus, 
usque  in  finem  mundi  inlibata  et  inconcussa  permanenda  de- 
cernimus ;  unde  coram  Deo  vivo,  qui  nos  regnare  precepit  et 
coram  terribili  eius  iudicio  obtestamus  per  hoc  nostrum  im- 
perialem constitutum  omnes  nostros  successores  imperatores 
vel  cunctos  optimates,  satrapes  etiam,  amplissimum  senatum 
et  universum  populum  in  toto  orbe  terrarum,  nunc  et  in  pos- 
terum  cunctis  retro  temporibus  imperio  nostro  subiacenti,  nuUi 
eorum  quoquo  modo  licere,  hec,  que  a  nobis  imperiali  sanctione 
sacrosanctae  Romanae  ecclesiae  vel  eius  omnibus  pontificibus 


APPENDIX  237 

concessa  sunt,  refragare  aut  confringere  vel  in  quoquam  con- 
velli.  Si  quis  autem,  quod  non  credimus,  in  hoc  temerator 
aut  contemptor  extiterit,  aeternis  condemnationibus  subiaceat 
innodatus,  et  sanctos  Dei  principes  apostolorum  Petrum  et 
Paulum  sibi  in  presenti  et  futura  vita  sentiat  contrarios,  atque 
in  inferno  inferior!  concrematus,  cum  diabolo  et  omnibus 
deficiat  impiis. 

Huius  vero  imperialis  decreti  nostri  paginam  propriis  mani- 
bus  roborantes  super  venerandum  corpus  beati  Petri,  principis 
apostolorum,  posuimus,  ibique  eidem  Dei  apostolo  spondentes, 
nos  cuncta  inviolabiliter  conservare  et  nostris  successoribus 
imperatoribus  conservanda  in  mandatis  relinqui,  beatissimo 
patri  nostro  Silvestrio  summo  pontifici  et  universali  papae 
eiusque  per  eum  cunctis  successoribus  pontificibus,  domino 
Deo  et  salvatore  nostro  Jesu  Christo  annuente,  tradidimus 
perenniter  atque  feliciter  possidendam. 

Et  subscriptio  imperialis  : 

t  Divinitas  vos  conservet  per  multos  annos,  sanctissimi  et 
beatissimi  patres. 

Datum  Roma  sub  die  tercio  Kalendarum  Apriliarum,  domno 
nostro  Flavio  Constantino  augusto  quater  et  Galligano  viris 
clarissimis  consulibus. 


237] 


238  APPENDIX  [238 

III 

Nicholas  of  Cues  (Cusanus)  on  the  Donation  of 
constantine 

De  concordantia  catholica,  lib.  Ill,  cap.  ii  ^ 

"ONum  praeterire  nequeo,  quoniam  pene  omnium  sententia 
indubitata  est,  Constantinum  Imperatorem,  occidentis  im- 
perium  Romano  pontifici  Silvestro,  ac  ejus  in  aevum  succes- 
soribus  perpetuo  dono  tradidisse;  et  ideo  etiam  si  ratio  de 
unitate  principantis,  scilicet  adversari  bono  et  recto  ordini, 
V  duo  capita  fore  non  concluderet,  pateret  tamen  in  Occidente 

Imperatorem  nullum  nisi  a  papa  dependenter  imperium  cog- 
nosceret,  juste  esse  posse.  Hanc  radicem  quoadpotui  investi- 
gavi,  praesupponens  hoc  etiam  indubitatum  esse,  Constantinum 
talem  donationem  f  acere  potuisse :  quae  tamen  quaestio  nec 
soluta  est  hactenus,  nec  solvetur  verisimiliter  uncquam. 

Sed  in  veritate  supra  modum  admiror,  si  res  ita  est,  eo  quod 
in  autenticis  libris  et  in  historiis  approbatis  non  invenitur. 
Relegi  omnia  quae  potui  gesta  imperialia  ac  Romanorum  pon- 
tificum,  historias  sancti  Hieronymi,  qui  ad  cuncta  colligendum 
diligentissimus  fuit,  Augustini,  Ambrosii,  ac  aliorum  opuscula 
peritissimorum,  revolvi  gesta  sacrorum  conciliorum  quae  post 
Nicenum  fuere:  et  nullam  invenio  concordantiam  ad  ea,  quae 
de  ilia  donatione  leguntur.  Sanctus  Damasus  papa  ad  in- 
stantiam  beati  Hieronymi,  actus  et  gesta  praedecessorum  dici- 
tur  annotasse,  in  cujus  opere  de  Sylvestro  papa  non  ea  in- 
veniuntur  quae  vulgo  dicuntur.  Legitur  in  certis  historiis  Con- 
stantinum a  Silvestro  baptizatum,  et  ipsum  imperatorem  tres 
illas,  sancti  Joannis,  sanctorum  Petri  et  Pauli  ecclesias  miri- 
fice  ornasse,  ac  annuos  multos  redditus  e  diversis  massis  ter- 
rarum  in  diversis  provinciis  et  insulis  pro  continuando  ornatu 
lampadarum  balsami  et  nardipistici,  ac  caeterorum,  donasse, 
de  quibus  omnibus  particularem  mentionem  in  pcntificum  libro 

1  Reprinted  from  the  1520  edition  of  the  works  of  Nicholas  Cusanus 
with  a  few  changes  in  the  interest  of  modernization.  Cf.  supra, 
pp.  188-191. 


239] 


APPENDIX 


239 


reperies.  Sed  de  donatione  temporalis  dominii,  aut  imperii 
Occidentis,  nihil  ibi  penitus  continetur. 

Verum  quid  postquam  Astulfus  rex  Longobardorum  ex- 
archatum  Ravennatem  occupavit,  cum  aliis  multis  locis,  et 
Stephanus  secundus  natione  Romanus  ex  patre  Constantino, 
multis  legatis  ad  Astulfum  missis  rogaret  imperiali  ditioni 
loca  restitui,  et  facere  non  vellet  Astulfus,  Stephanus  Pip- 
pinum  adiens,  eum  cum  duobus  filiis  in  reges  unxit.  Fuit 
etiam  cum  eodem  Stephano  orator  missus  Imperatoris,  et  a 
Pippino  impetrarunt,  ut  Astulfum  induceret,  quod  imperio 
loca  restitueret.  Misit  Pippinus,  nec  profecit.  Unde  cum 
non  posset  sic  ab  Astulfo  restitutionem  impetrare,  promisit 
Stephano  se  vi  ablaturum  ab  eo,  et  sancto  Petro  daturum. 
Hoc  audito  revertitur  imperialis  missus.  Pippinus,  quae 
promiserat  explevit.  Forma  vero  hujus  donationis  in  gestis 
praefati  Stephani  cum  nominatione  particulari  omnium 
bonorum  continetur.  Zacharias  papa  monarchiam  regni 
Franciae  in  Pippinum  transtulit,  Ludovico  rege  deposito,  de 
quo  legitur,  XV  q.  VI,  alius,  et  in  gloss,  venerabifem.  Ex  illo 
puto  Pippinum  sedi  apostolicae  favisse.  Post  hoc  Desiderius 
rex  iterum  illas  civitates  aut  earum  aliquas,  tempore  Adriani 
sexti  coepit.  Adrianus  papa  multis  missis  ad  eum  legatis, 
repetiit  jus  sancti  Petri,  impetrare  non  potuit.  Tunc  Carolus 
magnus  invocatus  per  Adrianum,  recuperavit,  et  iterum  dona- 
vit  sancto  Petro  solenni  donatione,  quae  in  gestis  ejusdem 
Adriani  papae  continentur.  Ex  istis  constat  Constantinum 
imperium  per  exarchatum  Ravennatem,  urbem  Romam,  et 
Occidentem  minime  papae  dedisse. 

Unde  continue  legitur,  Imperatores  usque  ad  tempora  prae- 
fata  sicut  prius  pleno  jure  Romam,  Ravennam,  et  Marchiam 
cum  aliis  locis  possedisse.  Et  probat  textus  XCVI,  distin. 
"  bene  quidam,"  ubi  dicit  de  Patricio  praefecto  nomine  Adoa- 
cris  regis ;  et  LXIII,  distin.  ''Agatho  " ;  XCVI,  distin.  cum 
ad  verum,"  cum  similibus.  Et  Romanos  pontifices  leginius 
Imperatores  sateri  dominos.  Scribit  enim  Agatho  papa  ad 
Imperatorem  Constantinum,  qui  sextam  Synodum  congrega- 
vit,  et  multis  annis  secutus  est  prinium,  quomodo  urbs  Roma 


240 


APPENDIX 


[240 


sit  ipsius  Imperatoris  servilis  urbs.  Et  Bonifacius  papa  ad 
Honorium,  qui  dicit,  quod  ecclesiae  Romanae  ipse  habet 
regere  sacerdotium,  sed  Imperator  humanas  res,  et  in  fine 
dicit  Romam  esse  urbem  suae  mansuetudinis ;  hie  textus  habe- 
tur  XCI  distin.  ecclesiae.''  Et  ut  breviter  dicam,  nullibi  con- 
trarium  legi  quin  usque  ad  ilia  praefata  Pippini  tempora  Im- 
perator remanserit  in  possessione  locorum  praetactorum.  Nec 
unquam  legi  aliquem  Romanorum  pontificum  usque  ad  tempora 
Stephani  secundi,  in  illis  locis  nomine  sancti  Petri  aliquid 
juris  praesumpsisse  habere. 

Haec  credo  vera  esse,  non  obstante  famigera  opinione  de 
contrario,  quae  in  palea  habetur  Constantinus,  XCVI  distin. 
quoniam  absque  dubio,  si  non  fuisset  illud  dictamen  apro- 
cryphum,  Gratianus  in  veteribus  codicibus,  et  canonum  collec- 
tionibus  invenisset,  et  quia  non  invenit,  non  posuit.  Unde 
quae  postea  addidit,  pro  palea  ita  illam  confictam  scripturam 
posuit,  sicut  multa  alia  inveniuntur  ex  apocryphis  libris  nos- 
tris  inscripta.  Ego  etiam  ad  longum  hanc  scripturam  in 
quodam  libro  inveni,  quae  multo  plus  continet,  quam  ea  quae 
in  decreto  ponitur  loco  praeallegato,  et  diligenter  earn  exami- 
nans  reperi  ex  ipsamet  scriptura,  argumenta  manifesta  con- 
fictionis  et  falsitatis,  quae  pro  nunc  longum  et  inutile  foret  his 
inserere.  Etiam  est  advertendum,  quod  textus  Constantinus, 
XCVI  distin.  est  ex  legenda  sancti  Silvestri  extractus,  et  f  undat 
ille  qui  imposuit  decreto,  autoritatem  ipsius  textus  in  appro- 
batione  Gelasii  in  Synodo.  Rogo  videatur  XV  disin.  sancta 
Romana  "  ilia  approbatio,  et  inveniet  pauci  roboris,  quia  dicit 
auctorem  ignorari,  et  tamen  per  catholicos  legi,  et  ea  propter 
legi  posse,  qualis  sit  approbatio,  quisque  considerare  potest. 
Multae  enim  sunt  historiae  sancti  Silvestri;  una  in  quo  hoc 
non  invenitur,  quam  sanctus  Damasus  ponit,  alia  cujus  auctor 
ignoratur,  quam  textus  non  dicit  veram  sed  legi  posse,  neque 
dicit  in  ilia  hoc  contineri.  Etiam  antiqua  decreta  non  habent 
textum,  nisi  usque  ad  ver.  "  Item  decreta  Romanorum  ponti- 
ficum "  inclusive,  et  sic  non  invenitur  in  illis  libris  iste  ver.  de 
historia  Silvestri.  Quinta  etiam  universalis  Synodus,  quae  de 
approbatis  doctorum  omnium,  et  scripturarum  approbatarum 


241] 


APPENDIX 


241 


libris  mentionem  facit,  ac  etiam  ipsa  synodus  Martini  papae, 
quae  fuit  contra  afferentes  unam  voluntatem  in  Christo,  sci- 
licet contra  Petrum  et  Sergium,  renovans  approbatas  scrip- 
turas,  ut  egomet  vidi,  nullam  de  istis  historiis  faciunt  men- 
tionem, nec  quisquam  approbatus  aut  nominatus  inter  veri- 
dicos,  quem  unquam  vidi. 

Ego  legi  in  Vicentio  historiarum,  XXIIII  libro,  in  fine, 
secundum  sanctum  Hieronymum,  Constantinum  uxorem  Faus- 
tam,  et  filium  Crispum  crudeliter  occidisse,  et  in  extremo 
vitae  ab  Eusebio  Nicomediae  episcopo  baptizatum,  in  Arianam 
liaeresim  declinasse.  A  quo  tempore,  inquit  Hieronymus, 
ecclesiarum  rapinae,  et  totius  orbis  discordia  secuta  est  usque 
in  praesens  tempus.  Ista  libro  de  actibus  Silvestri,  quem  Vin- 
centius  dicit  a  quondam  cujus  nomen  ignorat  e  Graeco  trans- 
latum,  ut  eodem  libro  cap.  IX  habetur,  manifeste  contradi- 
cunt.  Quis  non  crederet  potius  Hieronymo  approbate,  quam 
ignoti  auctoris  scripturis,  quae  apocryphae  dicuntur,  quando 
auctor  ignoratur? 

Textus  etiam  qui  asscribitur  Melchiadi  papae,  qui  habetur 
XII  q.  i.  futuram,  qui  videtur  huic  dicto  aliquantulum  obstare, 
non  est  Melchiadis  papae  secundum  glossam  quandam,  et  etiam 
rei  veritatem,  quia  Melchiades  praecessit  Silvestrum,  ut  patet 
in  catalogo  Romanorum  pontificum.  Et  si  Constantinus  fuit 
baptizatus  a  Silvestro  secundum  commune  dictum,  tunc  patet 
titulum  illius  textus  falsum,  quia  loquitur  de  baptismo  Con- 
stantini.  Et  etiam  si  Melchiadis  foret  ille  textus,  adhuc  non 
haberetur  argumentum  ex  eo  contra  praemissa,  quia  non  dicit 
aliud  quam  Constantinum  sedem  Romanam  imperialem  reli- 
quisse,  et  Petro  et  successoribus  consessisse.  Hoc  est,  quod 
ubi  fuit  sedes  imperialis,  quod  ibi  sit  modo  papalis,  quod  non 
negatur.  Et  verum  est  Constantinum  imperatorem  tempore 
Melchiadis  papae  fuisse,  et  tunc  Christianum,  ut  per  Augus- 
tinum  in  multis  locis  hoc  habetur,  et  maxime  in  epistola  ad 
Glorium  et  Elusium,  et  quibus  hoc  gratum  est,  quae  incipit, 

Dixit  quidem  apostolos,"  et  hoc  concordat  cum  Hieronymo. 

Vidi  etiam  decretum  Leonis  papae  in  synodo  Romana  cum 
subscriptione  episcoporum  et  clericorum  et  civium  Roman- 


242  APPENDIX  [242 

orum,  ubi  Leo  papa  Othoni  primo  restituit  omnia  loca  per 
Pippinum  et  Carolum  et  Robertum  reges  sancto  Petro  data. 
Et  nominantur  in  eodem  decreto  omnia  loca,  et  nuUam  facit 
de  donatione  Constantini  mentionem  ^ 

Sunt  meo  judicio  ilia  de  Constantino  apocrypha,  sicut  for- 
tassis  etiam  quaedam  alia  longa  et  magna  scripta  Sanctis 
Clementi  et  Anacleto  papae  attributa,  in  quibus  volentes  Ro- 
manam  sede  omni  laude  dignam,  plus  quam  ecclesiae  sanctae 
expedit  et  exaltare,  se  penitus  aut  quasi  fundant  

Sicut  nec  de  Constantini  donatione  se  majorem  arguere 
deberet,  quae  si  etiam  indubia  foret,  quid  in  spirituali  cathedra 
potestatis  ecclesiasticae  augere  possit,  quisque  intelligit.  Non 
adhuc  dubitaretur  de  ejus  validitate  solum  quae  diligenti  in- 
^fcquisitione,  quam  pro  veritate  scienda  reperire  potui  scribo, 
"salvo  in  omnibus  judicio  sacrae  Synodi.  Et  si  omnia  ilia  quae 
praenarrata  sunt,  ex  acceptatione  ecclesiae  firma  censeri  de- 
bent,  placet  et  mihi,  quia  etiam  illis  omnibus  scripturis  e  medio 
sublatis,  sanctam  Romanam  ecclesiam  primam,  summae  potes- 
tatis, excellentiae,  inter  cunctas  sedes  quisque  catholicus 
fateretur. 

1  The  two  following  paragraphs  on  this  page  I  have  taken  from 
the  reprint  in  Schard,  op.  cit. 


'V, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


CONSTANTIXE  AND  EaRLY  LEGENDS 

For  Bibliography  of  material  published  before  1890,  see  Xiceiie  and 
Post  Xicene  Fathers,  ed.  Philip  Schafif  (New  York,  1890).  series  II,  voi. 
I,  Eusebius,  pp.  411-467,  list  compiled  by  E.  C.  Richardson.  For 
shorter  but  later  list  see  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, ed.  Bury  (1895),  vol.  II,  pp.  530-540.  This  gives  a  good  discus- 
sion of  most  of  the  sources  about  Constantine.  For  a  recent,  long, 
unannotated  bibliography  see.  Cambridge  Medieva'  History,  vol.  I 
(1911),  and  vol.  II  (1913),  appendices. 


I.  SOURCES 


a. 


General  Collections  ^ 


r 


Ada  Sanctorum,  ed.  by  the  Bollandists,  vols.  1-54  in  2nd.  ed.  (1863- 

1869),  in  process  of  publication. 
Ante-Kicene  Fathers,  10  vols.  (New  York,  1886-1905). 
Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinamm  (C.  1.  L.),  ed.  Mommsen  and  others 

(Berlin,  1862,  in  progress),  new  ed.  (1893,  in  progress). 
Corpus  Scriptorum   Ecclesiasticorum   Latinorum    (Vienna,    1866,  in 

progress). 

Corpus  Scriptorum  Historiae  Byzantinac  (Bonn,  1828-97'). 

Collection  des  historiens  anciens  et  modernes  de  I'Armeni^,  by  Victor 

Langlois.    Containing  Moses  of  Chorene.  (1868.) 
Fragmenta  Historicum  Graecorum,  ed.  C.  Mueller,  5  vols.,  (Paris, 

1841-83). 

Monumenta  Germaniae  Historica  (M.  G.  H.),  ed.  Pertz,  Mommsen 

and  others  (Berlin,  1826,  in  progress). 
Nicene  and  Post  Nicene  Fathers,  ed.  Philip  Schaff  (Xew  York,  1890- 

1907). 

Panegyrici  Latini,  ed.  Bahrens  (Leipsic,  1874). 

Patrol ogiae  Cursus  Completus,  ed.  Migne,  J.  P. 

  Ser.  Graeca  (P.  G.),  166  vols.  (Paris,  1857-1866). 

  Ser.  Latina  (P.  L.),  225  vols.  (Paris,  1844- 1855). 

Sacrorum  Conciliorum  Collectio,  ed.  J.  D.  Mansi  (Florence  and  Venice, 
1759-1798).   Reprint  (Paris,  1901,  in  progress). 

Patrum  Kicaenorum  nomina  Latine,  Graece,  Coptice,  Arabice,  Armen- 
iace,  sociata  opera,  ed.  H.  Gelzer,  H.  Hilgenfeld,  O.  Cuntz  (Leip- 
sic. 1898).  ' 

243]  243 


244 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


[244 


b.  Individual  Works 

Addai,  Doctrine  of.    Syriac  Text  and  English  translation,  ed.  George 

Phillips  (London,  1876). 
Ambrose,  Opera,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  vols.  XIV-XVII;  in  Corpus  Scrip- 

torum  Ecclesiasticorum  Latinorum,  vol.  32;  Eng.  translation,  by 

Romestin,  in  Nicene  and  Post  Nicene  Fathers,  series  2,  vol.  10. 
Ammianus  Marcellinus,  Rcrum  Gestarum  Libri  (qui  supersunt) ,  ed.  in 

Teubner  Texts,  by  V.  Gardthausen,  2  vols.  (Leipzig.  1874-1875), 

Eng.  trans,  by  N.  H.  Baynes  (London,  1912). 
Anonymi  Itinerarium   [Anno  Domini  jjj]  a  Burdigaa  Hierusalem 

usque,  et  ah  Heraclea  per  Aulonam  et  per  urbem  Romam  Medio- 

lamim  usque,  etc.,  (the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim),  P.  L.,  VIIL  col.  783 

et  seq. 

Anonymus  Valesii,  printed  with  Ammianus  Marcellinus:  ed.  Mommsen 
in  Chronica  Minora  (M.  G.  H.,  1892).  Part  about  Constantine  is 
in  vol.  I  under  Origo  Constantini  imperatoris.  Cf.  also  Ohne- 
sorge,  W.,  Der  Anon.  Valesii  de  Constantino.    Kiel,  1885. 

Augustine,  Opera,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  XXXII-XLVII;  Eng.  translation  in 
Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  series  I,  vols.  1-8  (New  York, 
1903-1907). 

Chronica  Minora,  ed.  by  T.  Mommsen  (M.  G.  H.),  auct,  antiq.,  vols. 

9-12  (Berlin,  1892-98). 
Codex  Justinianus,  ed.  by  P.  Kriiger  (Berlin,  1877-99),  2  vols. 
Codex  Theodosianus,  or  Theodosiani  libri  XVI  £uni  constitutionibus 

Sirmondianis,  ed.  by  T.  Mommsen  and  P.  M.  Meyer,  3  vols.  (Berlin. 

1905)  ;  also  by  Haenel  (Berlin,  1842)  ;  also  by  J.  Gothofredus,  6 

vols.  (Leipsic,  1736-45). 
Codinus,  De  originibus  ConstantinopoUtanis,  in  Corpus  Scriptorum 

Historiae  Byzantinae ;  also  in  Scriptores  originuni  Constantinopoli- 

tanarum,  ed.  T.  H.  Preger  (Leipsic,  1901-7). 
Constantine,  Opera,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  VIIL 

  Oration  to  the  Assembly  of  the  Saints  (the  Easter  Ser- 
mon). Published  as  an  appendix  to  Eusehius'  Life  of  Con- 
stantine, q.  v. 

Eumenius,  Panegyricus  Constantino  Augusto.  In  Migne.  P.  L.,  viii, 
cols.  619-640.    Also  in  Panegyrici  Latini. 

Eunapius,  Opera,  ed.  by  C.  Miiller,  in  Fragmenta  Historicorum  Grae- 
corum,  vol.  IV  (1868);  also  by  L.  Dindorf,  in  Historici  Graeci 
Mino.res,  2  vols.  (Leipsic,  1870-71)  ;  and  by  F.  Boissonnade,  2  vols. 
(Amsterdam,  1822). 

Eusebius,  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  ed.  by  Schwartz  and  }iIommsen,  2 
vols.  (Berlin,  1903),  Kleine  Ausgabe  (1908);  also  by  W.  Bright 
(Oxford,  1872).  Vita  Constantini,  and  other  writings  in  Migne, 
P.  G.,  vol.  II;  also,  ed.  by  Heinichen  (1830,  1869);  ed.  Heikel  in 


245] 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


245 


G.  C.  S.,  (Berlin,  Leipsic,  1902),  Eng.  translation  of  these  and  of 
his  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine  in  Niccne  and  Post-Nicene 
Fathers,  series  2,  vol.  I.  Cf.  Heikel;  Kritische  Beitrage  zu  dem 
Constantin-Schriften  des  Eusebius,  in  Texte  u.  Untersuchungen. 
ed.  Harnack  u.  Schmidt  XXXVI,  4,  (Leipsic,  1911). 

Eutropius,  Breviarium  ah  urba  condita.  Ed.  Ruehl  (1887);  ed.,  H. 
Droysen  in  M.  G.  II.,  II  (1878-1879).  Trans,  in  Bohn  series  b> 
Watson,  Abridgement  of  Roman  History  (1853). 

Faustus,  History  of  Armenia,  German  translation  by  H.  Gelzer. 
French  translation  in  Langlois,  Coll.  d.  hist.  Armenie,  vol.  I. 

Hydatius,  Consular  Fasti,  in  Mommsen,  Chron.  Minora,  I. 

James  of  Sarug,  L'omilia  di  Giacomo  di  Sarug  sul  Battesimo  di  Con- 
stantino imperatore,  trad.  ed.  annot.  da  Arthur  L.  Frothingham, 
Jr.,  in  Memorie  della  Reale  Accad.  dei  Lincei,  (Rome,  1883). 

Jerome,  Opera,  Migne,  P.  L.,  22-33.  Eng.  translation  by  Lewis  and 
Martley  in  Xicene  and  Post-Xicene  Fathers,  series  2,  vols.  6. 

Julian,  Opera,  ed.  Hertlein  (Leipsic,  1875)  ;  the  Caesares,  ed.  also  by 
Ezekiel  Spanheim  (Gotha,  1736). 

Lactantius  (L.  Caecilius  Firmianus  Lactantius),  De  Mortibus  Persecu- 
toriim  (authorship  questioned),  Diz'inarum  Institutionum,  libri  vii, 
Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  7;  also  ed.  Brandt  and  Laubmann,  in  Corpus 
Scriptorum  Ecclesiasticorum  Latinorum,  vol.  xxvii,  ii,  2  (Vienna, 
1897).  Eng.  trans,  of  Lactantius'  works  in  Ante-Xicene  Fathers, 
vol.  7. 

Libanius,  cf.  Sievers,  Das  Lebcn  des  Libanius  (1868),  Orations  and 

Declamations,  4  vols.,  ed.  iReiske  (1784-1797)  ;  Speeches  and  Letters, 

ed.  by  Wolf  (1738). 
Moses  of  Chorene,  ed.  Le  Vaillant  de  Florival.    Cf.  supra.  Collection 

des  historiens  .  .  .  de  I'Armenie. 
Nazarius,  Panegyricus,  321,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  viii,  cols.  583-608;  also  in 

Paneg.  Lat. 

Philostorgius,  Kirchengeschichte,  ed.  J.  Bidez,  in  Die  griechischen 
christlichen  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte  (Leipsic, 
1913.  Ecclesiasticae  Historiae  Libri  Septem,  ed.  by  H.  Valesius, 
in  Migne.  P.  L.,  vol.  65.  Eng.  trans,  in  Bohn's  Ecclesiastical 
Library  (London,  1855). 

Prudentius,  Carmina,  ed.  by  A.  Dressel  (Leipzig,  i860),  in  Migne. 
P.  L.,  vols.  59-60.    Eng.  trans,  by  Thackery  (London,  1890). 

Socrates,  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  ed.  by  R.  Hussey,  3  vols.  (Oxford, 
1853)  ;  also  ed.  by  W.  Bright  (Oxford,  1878)  ;  also  Migne,  P.  G., 
vol.  67.  Eng.  trans,  in  Xicene  and  Post-Xicene  Fathers,  series  2, 
vol.  2  (New  York.  1890),  and  in  Bohn's  Eccles.  Library  (London, 
1874). 

Sozomen,  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  ed.  by  R.  Hussey,  2  vols.  (Oxford, 
1858-60;  also  in  Migne,  P.  G.,  vol.  67.    Eng.  trans,  in  Xicene  and 


246 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


[246 


Post-X icenc  Fathers,  scries  2,  vol.  2  (New  York,  1890),  and  in 

Holm's  Eccles.  Lib.  (London,  1855). 
Theodoret,  Historia  Ecdcsiastica,  ed.  by  L.  Parmentier  (Leipsic,  1911)  ; 

also  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  82.  Eng.  trans,  in  Nicene  and  Post-Nkene 

Fathers,  series  2,  vol.  3  (New  York,  1892),  and  in  Bohn's  Ecdes. 

Lib.  (London,  1854). 
Victor,  Sextus  Aurelius,  Opera,  ed.  F.  Pichlmayr  (Munich,  1892). 
Vita  Artemii,  in  Acta  Sanctorum  (October  20). 

Zosimus,  Historia  Nova,  ed.  by  L.  Mendelssohn  (Leipzig,  1887).  Eng. 
trans.  (London,  1814).  German  trans,  by  Seybold  and  Heyle 
(Frankfurt-a-M.,  1802). 

II.  LITERATURE 

Ayer,  J.  C,  Jr.,  A  Source  Book  for  Ancient  Church  History  (New 
York,  1913). 

Bardenhewer,  Otto.    Patrologie ;   Eng.  trans.,  Patrology.  (Freiburg 

i.B.  and  St.  Louis,  1908.) 
Baynes,  N.  H.   Rome  and  Armenia  in  the  Fourth  Century.   Eng.  Hist. 

Rev.,  XXV  (1910),  pp.  625-643. 
Boissier,  Gaston.   La  Fin  du  Paganisme :  etude  sur  les  dernieres  luttes 

religieuses  en  Occident  au  quatricme  siccle,  2  vols.    (Paris,  1891.) 

5th  ed.  (Paris,  1907). 
  Essais  d'histoire  religieuse;  II,  la  conversion  de  Constantin,  in 

Rev.  de  deux  mondes,  July,  1886,  pp.  51-72. 
Boyd,  W.  K.     The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodosian  Code, 

Columbia  University  Studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public 

Law,  vol.  XXIV  (New  York,  1905). 
Brieger,   Theod.     Constantin   der   Crosse  als  Religionspolitiker,  in 

Zeitsch.  f.  Kirchengeschichte  (1880). 
Burckhardt,  Jakob.    Die  Zeit  Constantins  des  Grossen  (Basle,  1853). 

2nd  ed.  (Leipsic,  1880).    3rd  ed.,  reprint  (Leipsic,  1898). 
Bury,  J.  B.    Cf.  Gibbon. 

Cambridge  Medieval  History,  planned  by  J.  B.  Bury,  vol.  i  (London 

and  New  York,  1911),  vol.  2  (London  and  New  York,  1913)- 
Carter,  J.  B.    The  Religious  Life  of  Ancient  Rome  (Boston,  1911). 
Ciampini,  Joan.    De  sacris  aediUciis  a  Constantino  magno  constructis 

synopsis  historica  (Rome,  1693). 
Clinton,  H.  F.   Fasti  Romani,  2  vols.    (Oxford,  1845-50.) 
Cohen,  H.   (continued  by  Feuardent).    Descriptions  des  monnaies 

f rappees  sous  I'Empire  romain  communement  appelees  medail  es 

impcriales,  8  vols.,  2nd  ed.    (Paris,  1880-1892.) 
Crivellucci,    A.    Storia   delle   relazioni   tra    lo    stato    e    la  chiesa. 

(Livorno,  1888.) 

Cumont,  Franz.  Textes  et  monuments  figures  relatifs  aux  mysteres  de 
Mithra.    (Brussels,  1899.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  247 

  The  Mysteries  of  Mithra,  trans,  by  J.  T.  AlcCormick.    ( London, 

1903.) 

  Les  Religions  orientales  dans  le  paganisme  romain.  (Paris,  1907.) 

Trans.,  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman  Paganism,  by  Grant  Shower- 
man.    (Chicago,  191 1.) 

Cutts,  E.  'L.  Constantine  the  Great;  the  Union  of  Church  and  State. 
(New  York,  1881.) 

Delahaye,  H.   Legends  of  the  Saints.    (London,  1907.) 

Dill,  Samuel.  Roman  Society  in  the  Last  Century  of  the  Western 
Empire.    (London,  1898.) 

Dolger,  ed.  Konstantin  der  Grosse  und  seine  Zeit.  XIX  Supple- 
mentheft  der  Romischen  Quartalschrift  (Freiburg  i.Br.,  1913). 

Ducange.    Constantinopolis  Christiana. 

Duchesne,  L.  Histoire  ancienne  de  I'Eglise,  3  vols.  (Paris,  1906-10.) 
Eng.  trans,  from  4th  ed.  Early  History  of  the  Christian  Church, 
2  vols,  published.    (London,  1909-12.) 

Duruy,  Victor.  Histoire  des  Romains  depuis  les  temps  les  plus  re- 
cules  jusqu'a  ['invasion  des  barbares.  (Paris,  1870,  and  later  edi- 
tions.) Eng.  trans.,  J.  P.  Mahaffy  ed.,  History  of  Rome  and  of 
the  Roman  People.    (London,  1883,  and  later.) 

  La  politique  religieuse  de  Constantin,  A.  D.  312-337,  in  Compte 

rendu  acad.  scien.  mor.  polit.,  XVII  (1882),  pp.  185-227. 

Finlay,  G.  History  of  Greece,  B.  C.  146-A.  D.  1864.  7  vols.,  ed.  Tozer, 
H.  F.    (Oxford,  1877.) 

Firth,  J.  B.    Constantine  the  Great.    (New  York,  1905.) 

Frothingham,  A.  L.    Cf.  supra,  James  of  Sarug. 

Geffcken,  Jobs.,  Aus  der  Werdezeit  des  Christentums  (Leipsic,  1904). 

Gelzer,  H.  Die  Anf'dnge  der  Armenischen  Kirche,  in  Berichte  iiber 
die  Verhandlungen  der  kon.  sdchs.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaft 
zu  Leipzig.    XLVII  (1895),  pp.  109-174. 

Gibbon,  E.  The  Llistory  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire.   Ed.  by  J.  B.  Bury,  7  vols.    (London,  1900- 1902.) 

Gieseler,  J.  C.  L.  Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschidite,  3  vols. (Bonn, 
1824);  5th  ed.  6  vols.  (1828-37).  Eng.  trans,  from  2nd  ed.  Text- 
book of  Ecclesiastical  History,  by  Hull,  revised  and  ed.  by  H.  B. 
Smith,  5  vols.  (New  York,  1863),  also  Davidson,  5  vols.  (Edin- 
burg,  1854). 

Glover,  T.  R.  The  Conflict  of  Religions  in  the  Early  Roman  Empire. 
(London,  1909.) 

Gorres,  Franz.  "  Die  Verwandtenmorde  Constantins  des  Grossen," 
Zeitsch.  fiir  iviss.  Theol.   XXX  (1887),  pp.  Z4Z-Z77- 

  "  Die  Religionspolitik  des  Kaisers  Constantins."    Ibid.,  XXXI 

(1888),  vol.  I,  pp.  72-93. 

  "Das  Edikt  von  Mailand."    Ibid.  (1892),  p.  282  et  seq. 

Grauert,  Hermann,  Konstantin  der  Grosse  und  das  Toleranz-Edikt  von 
Mailand,  Festrede  (Munich,  1913). 


247] 


248  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Gretser,  J.   De  cruce  Christi,  in  Opera,  vol.  2.    (Ratisbonae,  1743.) 

Grisar,  Hartmann.  History  of  Rome  and  the  Popes  in  the  Middle 
Ages.   Ed.  Luigi  Cappadelta,  translation  from  the  German.  (1912.) 

  "Die  vorgeblichen  Beweise  gegen  die  Christlichkeit  Constantins 

des  Grossen,"  Zeitsch.  f  iir  kathol.  Theolog.  VI  (1882),  pp.  585-607. 

Gwatkin,  H.  M.  "Constantine  and  his  City."  Chap.  I  of  Cambridge 
Medieval  History,  vol.  I,  pp.  1-23. 

Hamilton,  Mary.  Incubation,  or  the  Cure  of  Disease  in  Pagan  Tem- 
ples and  Christian  Churches.    (London,  1906.) 

Healy,  Patrick  J.  "Constantine's  Edict  of  Toleration,"  in  Catholic  Uni- 
versity Bulletin.    XIX  (1913),  No.  i,  pp.  3-22. 

Hiille,  Hermann.  Die  Toleranserlasse  romischer  Kaiser  fiir  das  Chrls- 
tentum.    (Berlin,  1895.) 

Jeep,  L.  Qiiellemmtersuchungen  su  den  Griechischen  Kirchenhistori- 
kern.    (Leipzig,  1884.) 

  "  Zur  Geschichte  Constantins,"  in  Festschrift  fiir  E.  Curtius. 

(Berlin,  1884.) 

  Zur  Ueberlieferung  des  Philostorgios,  in  Texte  und  Untersitch- 

ungen,  Neue  Folge.    (Leipzig,  1899.) 
Keim,  Theodore.   Der  Uebertritt  Constantins  des  Grossen  sum  Chris- 

tenthum,  Academ.  Vortrag.    (Zurich,  1862.) 
Langen,  Jos.   Geschichte  der  romischen  Kirche,  4  vols.    (Bonn,  1881.) 
Lipsius,  R.  A.    Die  edessenische  Abgarsage.    (Brunswick,  1880.) 
Madden,  W.    "  Christian  Emblems  on  the  Coins  of  Constantine  the 

Great,"   etc.    Numismatic   Chronicle.    New   Series,   vols.  XVII, 

XVIII.    (London,  1877-78.) 
Manso,  J.  C.  F.    Leben  Constantins  des  Grossen.     (Breslau,  1817; 

Vienna,  1819.) 

Maurice,   Jules.     Numismatique   Constantinienne.     Vol.   I.  (Paris, 

1908.)    In  process  of  publication. 
  Les  Origenes  de  Constantinople,  in  Memoires  du  centenaire  des 

antiquaires  de  France.    (Paris,  1904.) 
Monod,  Paul.    La  politique  religieuse  de  Constantin.  (Montauban, 

1886.) 

Miiller,  I.  E.  P.  von.  Handbuch  der  klassischen  Alterthumswissen- 

schaft.    New  ed.    (Berlin,  1892.)    In  progress  of  publication. 
Newman,  J.  H.   Essays  on  Miracles.    (London,  1875.) 
Pauly-Wissowa.   Real-Encyclopddie  der  klassischen  Alterthitmswissen- 

schaft  u.  s.  w.  Newed.  (Stuttgart,  1901-,  in  process  of  publication). 
Peter,  Hermann.    Die  gescJiichtliche  Litteratur  iiber  die  romische 

Kaiserzeit  bis  Theodosius  I  und  Hire  Quellen.   2  vols.  (Leipsic, 

1897.) 

■   Wahrheit  und  Kunst;  Geschichfschreibung  und  Plagiat  im  klass- 
ischen Altertum.    (Leipsic,  191 1.) 


[248 


249J 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


249 


Pfattisch,  J.  M.  Die  Rede  Konstantins  des  Grossen  an  die  Versamm- 
lung  der  Heiligen,  u.  s.  w.    (Freiburg  i.B.;  also  St.  Louis,  1908.) 

Preger.  "  Konstaninos-Helios,"  in  Hermes.  XXXVI  (1901),  p.  457 
et  seq. 

Rapp.    Das  Laharum  u.  der  Sonnenkultus,  in  Jahrb.  des  Vereins  von 

Altertiimsfreiinden  im  Rheinldnde.  (1866.) 
Reitsenstein,  R.    He'.lenistische  JVundererzdhlungen.   (Leipsic,  1906.) 
Richardson,  E.  C.    Ed.  Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine,  etc.,  in  Niceve 

and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Series  2,  vol.  I. 
Savio,  F.  "  La  Conversione  di  Costantino  Magno  e  la  Chiese  all'  Inizio 

del  Secolo  IV",  in  La  Civiltd  Cattolica.    February  15,  1913. 
Schaff,  P.  "  Constantine  the  Great  and  the  Downfall  of  Paganism  in  the 

Roman  Empire,"  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  XX  (1863),  p.  778  et  seq. 
Schanz,  M.  Romische  Litteraturgeschichte,  in  Miiller,  Handbuch,  etc. 
Schiller,  Hermann.     Geschichte  des  romischen  Kaiserzeit.    2  vols 

(Gotha,  1883-87.) 

Schultze,  Victor.    Geschichte  des  Untcrgangs  des  griechisch-rdmischen 

Heidentums.    2  vols.    (Jena,  1887-92.) 
  "  Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  Konstantins  des  Grossen,"  in 

Zeitsch.  fiir  Kirchengeschichte.   VII  (1885),  VIII  (1886.) 
  "  Quellenuntersuchungen   zur   Vita   Constantini   des  Eusebius." 

Ibid.,  XIV  (1894). 
Schwartz,  Ed.    Kaiser  Constantin  iind  die  christliche  Kirchc,  filnf 

Vortrdge.    (Leipsic,  Berlin,  1913.) 
Seeck,  Otto.    Geschichte  des  Untergangs  der  antiken  We  t.    5  vols. 

Berlin,  1895-1913.)    2nd.  ed.  1897  et  seq.;  3rd.  ed.  1910  et  seq. 

Volumes  used  in  this  work:  I  (1897),  II  (1901),  III  (1909),  IV 

(1911). 

  "  Die  Verwandtenmorde  Constantins  des  Grossen,"  in  Zeitsch.  fiir 

wiss.  Theol.   XXXIII  (1890),  pp.  63-77. 

  "Das  sogenannte  Edikt  von  Mailand,"  in  Zeitsch.  fiir  Kirchenge- 
schichte.  Vol.  XII  (1892),  p.  381  et  seq. 

  "Die  Bekehrung  Konstantins  des  Grossen,"  in  Deutsche  Rund- 
schau.   VII  (1891),  pp.  73-84. 

  "  Zur  Geschichte  des  Nicanischen  Konsils,"  in  Zeitsch.  fiir  Kirchen- 
geschichte.  XVII  (1897), 

  "  Die  Urkunden  des  Vita  Constantini,"  in  Zeitsch.  fiir  Kirchen- 
geschichte.   XVIII  (1898). 

  "  Urkundensfalschung  des  4n  Jahrhunderts."    Ibid.,  XXX  (June, 

1909). 

Sesan,  Valerian,  Kirche  und  Staat  im  rdmisch-byzantinischen  Reiche 
sett  Konstantin  dem  Grossen  und  bis  ::um  Falle  Konstantinopels. 
Vol.  I  (Czernowitz,  191 1). 


j-0  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [250 

Ulhorn,  Gerhard.  Der  Kampf  des  Christentums  mit  dem  Heidenthum. 
(Stuttgart,  1875.)  Eng.  trans,  by  Smyth  and  Ropes,  from  3rd  Ger- 
man ed.,  revised.    (New  York,  1891.) 

Zahn,  Theodor,  Constantin  der  Grosse  mid  die  Kirche.  (Hanover, 
1876.) 

  Geschichte  des  Sonntags. 

Venuti,  Tomaso  de  Bacci.   DaHa  grande  Perseciizione  alia  Vittoria  del 

Cristianesinio.    (Milan,  1913.) 
Wissowa,  Georg,   Religion  und  Kultus  der  Romer.    (Munich,  1902.) 
Workman,  H.  B.,  "  Constantine,"  in  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and 

Ethics,  vol.  iv  (New  York  and  Edinburg,  1912). 

Later  Legends  and  Historical  Criticism 
(W^orks  not  included  supra) 
I.  collections  and  source  books 

De  donatione  Constantini  quid  iieri  habeat  eruditoriim  quorumdam 
judicium,  lit  in  iiersa  pagella  uidehis.   (Mainz,  1518,  reprinted  later.) 

Godfray,  Thomas.  A  treatyse  of  the  donation  or  gyfte  and  endow- 
ment of  possessyons  gyven  and  graunted  unto  Sylvester,  pope  of 
Rhoviie,  by  ConstaniyiiC ,  cnipcrour  of  Rome,  etc.  (London,  1525.) 
Apparently  a  translation  of  the  preceding  item. 

Fabricius,  J.  A.   Bibliotheca  Graeca.    (Leipsic,  1705-1728.) 

Goldast,  Melchior.  Monarchia  s.  Romani  imperii,  sive  Tractatus  de 
jurisdictione  imperiali,  etc.,  vol.  I  (Hanover,  1611),  vol.  II  (Frank- 
fort, 1614),  vol.  Ill  (Frankfort,  1613). 

Kehr,  Paul  Fridolin.  Regesta  Pontificuni  Romanoni:',:.  Vol.  I.  Italia, 
1906.  Vol.  II.  Latium,  1907.  Rome  and  Berlin.  6  vols,  published. 

Martene  et  Durand.    Amplissima  CoUectio  i-etcriim  scriptorum  (1724). 

]!\Iirbt,  Karl.  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Papsttums  und  des  Romischen 
Katholizismus.    3rd  ed.    (Tubingen,  191 1.) 

Schard,  Simon.  Syntagma  zariorurn  autorum  de  imperiali  jurisdictione 
et  potestate  ccclesiastica,  or  syntagma  tractatuum  de  jurisdirtione, 
autoritate,  et  praeminentis  imperiale,  ac  potestate  ccclesiastica. 
(Basil,  1566.    Under  slightly  different  title,  1609). 

II.  writings  before  the  i6th  century 

Aidhelm,  Opera,  ed.  Giles  (1844). 

Codex  Carolinus,  in  Mon.  Ger.  Hist.,  Epistolae,  III. 

Corpus  juris  canonici,  ed.  Friedberg.    (Leipsic,  1879-81.) 

Cusanus,  Nicholas.    De  Concordantia  Catholica.    (Basle,  156S.)  Also 

printed  in  Opera.    (Basle,  1520,  1565.) 
Decretales  Pseudo-Isidorianae  et  Capitiila  Angilramni,  ed.  Hinschius. 

(Leipsic,  1863.) 


251]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  25 1 

Gratian.  Decrctuii:,  in  Corpus  juris  cationici,  q.  v. 

Liber  PontiUcalis,  ed.  Duchesne,  with  introduction  and  commentary, 

2  vols.    (Paris,  1886,  1892.) 

 ed.  Mommsen.  in  M.  G.  H.    (Berlin,  1898.) 

Marsiglio  of  Padua,  Defensor  pads.    (Frankfort,  1592.) 

Mombritius  (Mombrizio).    Sanctnarium,  siz'e  vitae  sanctorum  co  Icctae 

ex  codihus.    (Milan,  c.  1479.)    New  edition.    (Paris.  1910.) 
Moses  Clioreusis,  ed.  Whiston.    French  translation  in  Langlois,  Col- 
lection des  historiens  anriens  et  modern  de  I'Armenie. 
Pecock.  Reginald.    The  Repressor  of  Overmuch  Blaming  of  the  Clergy. 

In  Rolls  Series,  in  Rerum  Britannicarum  medii  aezi  scriptores. 

(London,  i860.)    Ed.  Wharton  and  Babington. 
Regesta  poutif.cum  Romanorum  ah  condita  ecclesia  ad  annum  post 

Christum  natum  1198.  ed.  Jaft'e.    2nd  ed.    2  vols.    (Leipsic.  1S85. 

1888.) 

  ed.  Kehr,  P.  F.  (Berlin.  1906-1913.)  In  progress,  six  vols,  al- 
ready published. 

Valla,  Lorenzo.    Opera.    (Basel,  1543;  Venice.  1592.) 

  de  falso  credita  et  ementita  Donatione  Constantini,  manuscript 

copies.  Cod.  J 'at.  Urbinates  Latini,  No.  337  (all  except  a  few  para- 
graphs destroyed),  also  Cod.  J 'at.,  Xo.  5314.  dated  December  7, 
1451,  in  splendid  condition. 

  Ibid.    Printed  by  Ulrich  von  Kutten  in  1517,  frequent  reprints, 

also  in  Opera. 

  Ibid.    Translations:  English,  Thomas  Godfray  (London,  1525?); 

French,  Anonymous  (c.  1522).  Alcide  Bonneau.  with  Latin  text 
and  historical  study  (  Paris,  1S79)  ;  Italian,  without  typographical 
indication  (1546);  ed.  also  by  G.  Vincenti  under  title,  "La  dis- 
sertazione  di  Lorenzo  Valla  su  la  falsa  e  menzognera  donazione  di 
Costantino  tradotta  in  italiano  da  G.  Vincenti."  Latin  and  Italian 
(Naples.  1895,  out  of  print). 

Voragine.  Go. den  Legend,  ed.  Graesse.  ( Breslau.  1890.)  Trans,  by 
Wm.  Caxton,  revised  by  Ellis.    (London,  1900.) 

III.  WRITINGS   AFTER  I5OO 

Baronius.  Caesar.  AnnaJes  Ecclesiastici  una  cum  crlilca  historica 
chronologica,  ed.  Pagii  (1588  et  seq.)  ;  ed.  Mansi,  34  vols.  (Lucca. 
1738  to  1746.) 

Banck.  V.  De  fyrannide  Papae  in  Reges  et  Principes  Chrisiianos. 
(Franequerae,  1649.) 

Barozzi.  L.  and  Sabbadini,  R.  Stndi  sul  Panormita  e  siil  Valla.  Reale 
instiiutio  di  studi  superiori  practici  e  di  perfesionemento.  (Flor- 
ence, 1891.) 

Bayet.     La  fausse  donation  de  Constantin,  in  the  Annuaire  de  '.a 


252  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [252 

Faculte  des  Lcttres  de  Lyon.  (Lyons,  1884),  also  separately 
(Paris,  1884). 

Binius,  Severinus.  Collection  des  ConcUes.  4  vols.  (Cologne,  1606.) 
Bohmer,  H.    "  Konstantinische  Schenkung,"  in  Real-Encyklopddie  fiir 

protestantische  TJieologie.    Vol.  XI  (1902). 
Brunner,  Heinrich,    Das  Constitiitiun  Constantini,  in  Festgabe  fiir 

Rudolf  von  Gneist,  pp.  1-36,  and  separately.    (Berlin,  1888.) 
Cambridge  Medieval  History.    Vol.  II.     (New  York  and  London, 

1913.)    Especially  chapter  XVIII,  by  G.  L.  Burr. 
Caspar,  Erich.    Pippin  und  die  romische  Kirche.    (Berlin,  1914.) 
Catholic  Encyclopedia,  especially  art.  "  Donation  of  Constantine."  J.  P. 

Kirsch.    Vol.  V.    (New  York,  1909.) 
Colombier.    *"La  Donation  de   Constantin,"  in  Etudes  Religieuses. 

Vol.  XI  (1877). 

Combefis.    Illustrium  Christi  Martyrum  Triumplii.    (Paris,  1659.) 
D'ollinger.    Papstfabeln  des  Mittelalters.    (Munich,  1863.)    Also  ed. 

J.  Friedrich.    (Stuttgart,  1890.) 
Duchesne,  ed.  Liber  pontiUcalis,  q.  v. 

Fournier,  P.  Etudes  sur  les  fausses  Decretales.  (Louvain,  1907.) 
Friedrich,  J.  Die  Constantinische  Schenkung,  (Nordlingen,  1889.) 
Frothingham,  A.  L.,  Jr.    L'omelia  di  Giacomo  di  SarO.g  sul  battesinio 

di  Costantino  imperatore,  in  Atti  del.a  R.  Accademia  dei  Lincei 

(Rome,  1883). 

Gmelin.     Das  Schenkiingsversprecken   und   die  Schenkung  Pippins. 

(Leipsic,  Vienna,  1880.) 
Grauert,  H.    "  Die  Constantinische  Schenkung,"  in  Hist.  Jahrhnch  der 

Gdrresgesellschaft,  III  (1882);  IV  (1883);  V  (1884). 
Gregorovius,  F.    GesMchte  der  Stadt  Rom  im  Mittela  ter.    8  vols. 

Stuttgart,  1859-1872)  ;   5th.  ed.    (1903  et  seq.)    Eng.  trans.,  A. 

Hamilton,  8  vols.,  Rome  in  the  Middle  Ages.   (London,  1894-1902.) 
Guicciardini.    Istoria  d'ltalia.    (Freiburg,  1775-1776;  Pisa,  1819.) 
Haller.   Die  Quellen  cur  Geschichte  der  Entstehung  des  Kirchenstaats. 

(Leipsic  and  Berlin,  1907.) 
  "  Die  Karolinger  und  das  Papsttum,"  in  Hist.  Zeit..  108,  3-12,  i, 

pp.  39-76. 

Hartmann,  Ludo  Moritz,  Geschichte  Ita  iens  im  Mittelalter.    In  Allge- 

meine  Staatengeschichte,  hrsg,  v.  K.  Laraprecht,  Abt.  I.  Werk  32. 

Vols.  I-III  (Leipsic,  1897-1911). 
Hauck,  A.    "  Zur  donatio  Constantins,"  in  Zeitsch.  f.  kirchi.  IVissen- 

schaft  n.  kirch'.  Leben  (1888). 
Henderson,  Ernest  F.    Select  Historical  Documents  of  the  Middle 

Ages.    (London.  1892.)    Trans,  of  Donation  of  Constantine,  pp. 

319-329. 


253] 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


253 


Heydenreich,  J:^.  Ed.  Inccrti  Auctoris  de  Constantino  Magno  ejusque 
matre  Helena  lihelliis  (Leipsic,  1879). 

  Ueber  einen  neugefundenen  Roman  von  der  Jugendgesehichte 

Constantins  des  Grossen,  in  V erhandel.  d.  Philologenversammlung 
in  Trier;  also  in  Berliner  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  Gymnasialwesen  (1880). 

  "  Constantin   der   Grosse  in   den   Sagen   des   Mittelalters,"  in 

Deiitsch  Zeitsch.  f.  Gescliichtswissensehaft,  IX  (1893),  pp.  1-27. 

  "  Griechische  Berichte  iiber  die  Jugend  Constantins  des  Grossen," 

in  Griech.  Stud.  H.  Lipsiiis  sum  Geburtstag  dargebracht  (1894). 

Hodgkin,  Thomas.  Italy  and  her  Invaders.  8  Vols.  (Oxford,  1880- 
1899.)    Second  edition  (1892-1896,  Vols.  I-IV,  in  V). 

Hutten,  Ulrich  von.  Opera,  ed.  Miinch.  5  Vols.  (Berlin,  1821-1825.) 
Ed.  E.  Booking.   7  Vols.  (1859-62). 

Janssen,  Johannes.  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  Trans,  from  the  German  (15th  ed.)  by  M.  A.  Mit- 
chell and  A.  M.  Christie.    16  Vols.    (London,  1905.) 

Kaufmann,  George.  "  Eine  neue  Theorie  iiber  die  Entstehung  und 
Tendenz  der  angeblichen  Schenkung  Constantins,"  in  Allgem. 
Zeitung  (1884). 

Kirsch,  J.  P.  "  Die  Heimat  der  Konstantinischen  Schenkung,"  in 
Romische  Quartalschrift  fur  christliche  Altertumskunde  und 
Kirchengeschichte,  Bd.  xxiii,  110-114.    (Rome,  1909.) 

Kriiger,  G.  "  Die  Frage  nach  der  Entstehungszeit  der  Konstantinische 
Schenkung,"  in  Theologische  Literaturzeitiing,  XIV  (1889),  cols. 
429-435,  455-460. 

Lamprecht,  C.    Die  romische  Frage  von  Konig  Pippin  bis  aiif  Kaiser 

Luawig  den  Fronimen.    (Leipsic,  1889.) 
Langen,  J.    "  Entstehung  und  Tendenz  der  Konstantinischen  Schen- 

kungsurkunde,"  in  Historische  Zeitschrift  L.  (1883). 
Langen,  J.   Geschichte  der  romische n  Kirche.   4  vols.    (Bonn,  1885.) 
Lea,  Henry  C.   Studies  in  Church  History  (1883). 
Loning,  E.    "  Die  Entstehung  der  Konstantinischen  Schenkungsur- 

kunde,"  in  Hist.  Zeitschrift,  LXV  (1890). 
Martens,  W.   Die  romische  Frage  unter  Pippin  und  Karl  den  Grossen. 

(Stuttgart,  1881.) 

  Die     falsche     Generalkonzcssion     Konstantins     des  Grossen. 

(Munich,  1889.) 

  Beleuchtung  der  neuesten  Kontroversen  iiber  die  romische  Frage 

unter  Pippin  und  Karl  dem  Grossen.    (Munich,  1898.) 

Mayer,  E.  "  Die  Schenkungen  Konstantins  und  Pippins,"  in  Deutsche 
Zeitschrift  fiir  Kirchenrecht,  XXXVI,  p.  i  et  seq.  (Tubingen, 
1904.) 

Mancini,  Girolamo.    Vita  di  Lorenzo  Valla.    (Florence,  1891.) 
Nisard,  Charles.  Lcs  Gladiateurs  de  la  republique  des  lettres  aux  XVe, 
XV I e  et  XV He  sicdes.   2  Vols.    (Paris,  i860  ) 


254 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


[254 


Pastor,  Ludwig.    The  History  of  the  Popes  from  the  Close  of  the 

Middle  Ages.    Trans,  and  ed.  by  F.  I.  Antrobus.    Second  ed.  10 

Vols.    (London,  1898.) 
Scheffer-Boichorst,  Paul.   Neue  Forschungen  iiber  die  Konstantinische 

Schenkung,  in  Mitteilungen  des  Instituts  fiir  osterr.  Geschichts- 

forshung,  X  (1889),  XI  1890).    Also  printed  in  Historische  Stu- 

dien,  pub.  by  Eberling,  Vol.  42. 
Schwahn,  Walther.    Lorenzo  Valla;  eirt  Beitrag  sur  Geschichte  des 

Humanismiis.    (Rostock,  1896.) 
Steuchus.    Contra    Laiirentiuni    Vallani    de    Donatione  Constantini 

(Lyons,  1547-) 

Strauss,  D.  F.    Ulrich  von  flutten  (1857),  4th  ed.  (1878).   Eng.  trans. 

by  G.  Sturge,  from  second  ed.  (1874). 
Taylor,  Henry  O.    The  Medieval  Mind.   2  Vols.    (New  York,  191 1.) 
Tiraboschi,  Girolamo.    Storia  della  letteratura  Italiana.    (Rome,  1783, 

1806.) 

Voigt,  G.  Die  IViederhelehung  des  classischen  Alterthunis  (1880-1881). 
Weiland,   L.    "  Die  Konstantinische   Schenkung,"   in   Zeitschrift  f. 

Kirchenrecht,  XXII,  i  (1887),  XXII,  2  (1888). 
Wolff,  Max  von.   Lorenzo  Valla,  sein  Leben  und  seine  IVerke.  (Leip- 

sic,  1893.) 

Zeumer,  Karl,  "  Die  alteste  Text  von  der  Donation  von  Constantln. 
(Die  Konstantinische  Schenkungsurkunde,")  in  Festgabe  fiir  Ru- 
dolf von  Gneist.    (Berlin,  1888.) 

Zinkeisen.  "  The  Donation  of  Constantine  as  Applied  by  the  Roman 
Church,"  in  Eng.  Hist.  Rev.,  IX  (1894). 


INDEX 


Names  of  modern  writers  are 
writings  by  italics. 

Abgar  legend,  156-157 

Acts  of  Syhester,  cf.  Vita  Silvestri 

Addai  (Thaddeus),  116,  156 

Addai,  Doctrine  of,  116 

Ado  of  Vienne,  178 

Adulter}',  legislation  on.  44 

Aeneas  Sylvius,  199,  200 

Aldhelm,  150 

Alexander  VI,  201 

Alfonso  of  Aragon  and  Naples,  193 

Ambrose  of  Milan,  153.  169 

x\mmianus  Marcellinus,  63,  89,  123 

Anastasia,  74 

Anselm  of  Lucca,  178 

Antioch,  Church  at,  57 

Antoninus  of  Florence,  201 

Anulinus,  Rescript  to,  30.  31 

Apollo,  cf.,  also.  Sun-worship,  76,  85 

Apotheosis  of  Emperors,  47,  61 

Arch  of  Constantine,  47-52 

Arian  controversy,  70-71,  82 

Ariosto,  202 

Arius,  70,  71 

Aries.  Synod  of.  69 

Armenia,  157,  I58n 

Artemiiis,  Life  of  St.,  140 

Athanasius,  71 

Augustine,  141 

Balsamon.  179 

Baptism  of  Constantine.  cf..  Con- 
stantine 
Baronius,  170.  206-207 
Basle,  Council  of,  189  et  seq. 
Bernard,  St.,  187 
Bethlehem,  Church  at,  57 
Bishops,  Judicial  Powers  of.  41 
Blastares,  179 
BoissiER,  22 
Boniface  III,  180 
Boniface  VIII,  178 
Bonizo,  171 

Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  57n,  120 
255] 


indicated  by  small  caps,  titles  of 

Brieger,  21 
Brei  iary,  The,  172 
:  Brunner,  214 

i  BURCKHARDT.  20,  45.  65 

:  Bury,  66 

;  Caecilian,  Bp.  of  Carthage.  63n.4.  69 
Caesars,  The,  124 
Cathalanus.  200 
Celibacy  of  the  Clergy.  32 
Charlemagne,  200 
Children,  Legislation  on,  43-44 
Christianity,    Adoption    of.  9.  17 

et  seq.,  37  et  seq.,  S3-86,  9^-99. 

IQ2  et  seq.,  123 
Christianity,  and  Paganism.  82  et 

seq.,  95-96 
Church,  Privileges  of,  32  et  passim 
Church  Property,  30 
Claudius,  Emperor,  113 
Claudius.  Legend  of  Constantine's 

Descent  from,  105,  112  et  seq. 
Clerg}-.  Privileges  of,  31-32,  40 
Codex    Theodosianus,    cf.  Theo- 

dosian  Code 
Codinus,  129 

Coinage,  cf.,  Constantine 
Concubinage.  Legislation  on.  44 

I  Constance.  Council  of.  188 

'  Constans,  Emperor,  37 
Constantia.  60,  114 

,  Constantine,  the  Great 

I       Baptism,  87-89,95.  159,  160.  171 ; 

I     Career,   10,   112;   Church  build- 

I  ing.  56-61,  147-148,  163;  Coinage. 
45-47:  Donation  of,  r/.  Constitu- 
tion Constantini;  Conversion,  72- 
82.  106,  125-128,  133-135  et  seq., 
141,  152  et  seq.]  "Edict  to  the 

:  Inhabitants  of  the  Proznnce  of 
Palestine,"  39.  no;  "Edict  to  the 
People  .  .  .  the  Error  of  Poly- 
theism,'" 39;  Influence  of,  9  et  seq.. 


256 

17-19.  103;  As  Legend-maker, 
105-107,  139-140;  Legendary 
Leprosy,  153-155,  162  et  passim; 
Legislation,  25-45;  Literature  on, 
19-23;  Miraculous  Aid,  131  et 
seq.;  Miraculous  Visions,  77-79, 
109,  136  et  seq.;  Moral  Character, 
89-94,  142;  Motives  and  Disposi- 
tion, 17,  68,  71,  78,  80-81,  86-87, 
108;  Oration  to  the  Saints  (the 
Easter  Sermon),  no;  Piety,  141 
et  seq.;  Religious  Position,  54-55) 
146  et  passim 
Constantinople,  57-58,  148  et  seq., 
176 

Constantius,  Father  of  Constantine 
the  Great,  73-74,  114,  120 

Constantius,  Son  of  Constantine  the 
Great,  91 

V    Constitution  Constantini,  12-13,  168, 
175-183,  194-195,  209  et  seq. 
Constitutum  Sylvestri,  166-167 
Cortesi,  201 

Crispus,  77-91-92,  III,  127-128,  130 
Crivelluci,  27-28,  109 
Cross,  The,  80 

"  Cross,  Legend  of  the  True  ",  60, 

116  et  seq.,  159 
CuMONT,  83-84 
Cusanus,  189  et  seq. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  120 

Dante,  179,  I93 
Decretum  Gelasii,  165 
Dessau,  114 

Deusdedit,  Cardinal,  178 
Diocletian,  61,  ico-ioi,  112,  115 
Diocletian  Persecution,  66 
Dionysius  Exiguus,  165 
Divination,  cf.  Magic 
DoLGER,  F.  J.,  23 

Donation  of  Constantine,  cf.  Con- 
stitutum Constantini 
Donatist  schism,  58,  68-69 
Donato,  Girolamo,  201 
Duchesne,  22,  in,  154,  I55n,  158 
DuRUY,  21 

Easter,  70-82 

Easter   Sermon,    cf.  Constantine, 

Oration  of 
Edict  of  Milan,  cf.  Milan 
Edict  to  the  People  .  .  .  the  Error 

of  Polytheism,  cf.  Constantine 


[256 

Edict  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Pro- 
vince of  Palestine,  cf.  Constantine 

Ekkehard,  171 

Episcopal  Courts,  41 

Equitius,  Church  of,  60 

Erasmus,  192 

Eugenius  III,  178 

Eugenius  IV,  194,  198 

Eumenius,  42-43,  74-76,  loi,  113 

Eunapius,  65,  123,  128 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  27-29.  38,  53, 
62-63,  71-74,  106,  107-112,  133,  135, 
142,  162,  167,  195-196 

  Church  History,  54,  in 

  Life  of  Constantine,  38-39,  54, 

88,  107  et  seq.,  in,  142,  144-145 

  Oration  in  Praise  of  Constan- 
tine, 86,  107  et  seq.,  126,  139,  142 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  62,  153, 
159-160,  171 

Eusebius   of   Rome,    119,  152-153, 

159,  171 
Eutropius,  89,  114,  123 
Evagrius,  129,  143 

Farfa,  Monastery  of,  186 

Fausta,  58,  91-92,  ni,  127,  128,  130 

Fetichism,  79 

Forgery,  13,  102,  no-iii,  168,  175, 

211  et  seq. 
Fredegar,  169 
Frederic  I,  186 
Frehulf,  169 
Frothingham,  a.  L.,  49 

Galerius,  Edijct  of,  27 

Gaza,  53 

Geffcken,  23 

Ge.asii,  Decretum,  165 

Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  153 

Gesta  Liberii,  166,  171 

Gesta  Silvestri,  cf.  Vita  Silvestri 

Gibbon,  Edward,  20,  120,  140 

Gladiatorial  Exhibitions,  43 

Glycas,  65 

Gorres,  Franz,  22,  27-28,  no 
Gottfried  of  Bamberg,  187 
Gratian,  178 
Gregory  the  Great,  167 
Gregory  VII,  178,  181 
Gregory  IX,  178,  180 
Gregory  the  Illuminator,  157 
Grisar,  22 

Hadrian  I,  210 


INDEX 


2S7]  i^^'i 

Hadrian  IV,  178 

Haruspices,  35,  76 

Healing,  Miraculous,  96 

Helena,  112,  116  et  seq.,  121,  152, 

163-164 
Heliopolis,  Church  at,  57 
Hereditary  Succession,  115 
Heretical  Sects,  32,  40 
Hermann  the  Lame,  169 
Heydenreich,  121-122 
Hincmar,  178 

Hispellum,  Inscription  at,  52 

Historia  Tripartita,  169,  185 

Historical  Writing  among  the  Ro- 
mans, 100  et  seq. 

Historical  Criticism,  Modern,  208 
et  seq. 

HoDGKiN,  E.  M.,  13,  180 

Hosius,  62,  128 

HiiLLE,  Hermann,  28-29 

Hugo  of  Fleury,  178 

Hutten,  Ulrich  von,  199,  20?  et  seq. 

Immorality,  legislation  on,  44 

Innocent  III,  178,  180-181 

Innocent  IV,  178 

Inscriptions,  45-47,  47-52 

Isapostolos,  143 

Isidore,  169 

Isidorean  Decretals,  cf.  Pseiido- 

Isidorean 
Ivo  of  Chartres,  178 

Jacob  of  Sarug,  cf.  James 
James  of  Sarug,  154  et  seq.,  158 
Jerome,  38,  88n.2,  141,  143,  169,  185, 

191,  195 
Jerusalem.,  churches  at,  57 
Jews,  32.  44-45.  163 
John  XXII,  178 
Judas  Cyriac,  118 
Julian,  Emperor,  66,  89,  90,  114, 

123-127 
Justin  Martyr,  34 

Kanonaris,  65 
Keim,  Theodor,  20 

Labarum,  47,  6,  77-81,  106-107,  134 
Lactantius,  27,  29,  53-54,  62,  73n4, 

77  et  seq.,  84,  138 
Laetus,  Pomponius,  199 
Lateran  church,  58-59,  160,  176 
Laws.  cf.   Constantine,  legislation 


tx  257 

Legends,  cause  and  significance,  9- 

12,  99  et  sea. 
Leo  IX,  178  ' 
Leopold  of  Bebenburg,  187 
Leprosy,  165,  cf.  also  Cou  tantine 
Libanius,  38,  123 

Liber  PontiiicaUs,  59,  119,  147,  160 
Licinius,  26,  27,  37,  55,  81,  91-92,  I33 
Life  of  Constantine  cf.  Eusebius 

of  Caesarea 
Louis  the  Pious,  200,  214 
Luther,  204-205 


Magic,  cf.  also  Divination,  35-36 
Mamre,  Church  at,  57 
Man  so,  no 

Manumission  of  Slaves,  Z'^-ZZ 
Marianus  Scotus,  169 
]Marquardt,  21 
Marsiglio  of  Padua,  187 
Maxentius,  72,  76-81,  112,  132  et 

passim 
Maximian,  114 
Melchiades,  cf.  Miltiades 
MiGNE,  170 

Milan,  Edict,  or  Rescript  of,  19, 
26-30 

Miltiades,  Bishop  of  Rome,  58,  69, 

162,  195-196,  205 
Milvian  Bridge,  Battle  of,  77-79 
Minervina,  91 
Miraculous  Cures,  96n.i 
Mithraism,  33.  34.  85 
Mombritius  (Mombrizio),  i6n.,  166 
Mom M SEN.  no 

Monogram  of  Christ,  cf.  also  La- 
barum, 47,  61,  77-81,  137-141 
Monotheism,  Roman,  30,  51,  76,  82, 

94,  96 

Moses  of  Chorene,  55,  158-159 
Mount  of  Olives,  57 


Nazarius,  56,  74,  76,  loi,  132-133 
Nicea,  first  Council  of,  63,  70,  81, 

103,  no,  III 
Nicea,  second  Council  of,,  169 
Nicholas    of    Cues    (Cusa),  cf. 

Cusanus 
Nicholas  III,  178 
Nicholas  V,  198 
Nicomedia,  Church  at,  57 
Niebuhr,  20 
Notitia,  59 


INDEX 


[258 


Olympiodorus,  128 
Oration  of  Constantine,  cf.  Con- 
stantine 

Oration  in  Praise  of  Constantine, 

cf.  Eusebius 
Otto  III,  185 

Paganism,  26,  37  et  seq.,  45,  63-67, 

73-7^,  82,  94,  95-96 
Panegyrists,  66,  74,  76,   loi,  108, 

131,  142 
Paul  I,  211,  212,  213 
Pecock,  Reginald,  199-200 
Peter  Damiani,  178 
Peter,  H.,  10 i,  109 
Philostorgius.  140,  143,  150 
Piccolomini,  cf.  Aeneas  Sylvius 
Picernus,  Bartholemeus,  201 
Pippin,  200,  212 
Pius  II,  cf.  Aeneas  Sylvius 
Pontifex  Maximus,  46,  67 
Poggio,  197 
Porcaro,  199 

Praxagoras  Atheniensis,  123 
Prosper,  169 
Protonice,  116-117 
Pseudo-Isidorean  Decretals,  178,  211 

Quarto  Incoronati,  Church  of,  170 

Religious  Toleration  and  Liberty, 
30-31 

Rome,  Churches  at,  58-61 
Rossi,  DE,  49 
Rufinus,  153,  196 

St.  Denis,  Monastery  of,  211 
Santa  Croce  in  Gerusalemme, 

Church  of,  59-60 
Scarampo,  Cardinal,  197 
Schiller,  Hermann,  21,  47 

SCKEFFER-BOICHORST,    12-13,    211  et 

seq. 

SCHULTZE,  v.,  22,  38,  53,  IIO 

Schwartz,  Ed.,  23,  67-68,  94 
Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae,  100, 
123 

Seeck,  O.,  19,  22,  26,  27,  67-68,  78, 

no,  112,  IT4,  ii5n.2 
Sepulchre,  Church  of  the,  57 


Sesan,  v.,  28 

Slavery,  cf.  also  Manumission,  32, 
43 

Socrates,  143 

Soothsayers,  cf.  Haruspices 

Sopater,  65,  128,  129 

Soracte,  Mt.,  162,  170 

Sozomen,  129,  135,  143,  149 

Statues,  Equestrian,  144 

Stephen  II,  211,  212,  213 

Stephen  IV,  214 

Steuchus,  205 

Suidas,  65 

Sun-worship,  33 

Sunday,  32-35 

Symmachus,  Pope,  165 

Sylvester,  Bishop  of  Rome,  cf,  also 
Vita  Silvestri,  119,  1 50-151,  153, 
155,  159,  161  et  seq.,  170,  176 

Sylvester  II,  185 

Syraptim  (Syraptis),  cf.  also 
Soracte,  162,  170 

Temples,  Pagan,  39,  63-64 

Tertullian,  34 

Thaddeus,  cf.  Addai 

Theodoret,  139,  i43,  i45,  152 

Theodosian  Code,  57 

Trdat  (Tiridates),  157 

Twelve  Apostles,  Church  of  the,  57 

Urban  II,  178 

Valens,  65 

Valla,  Lorenzo,  13,  191  ct  seq. 
Victor,  Sextus  Aurelius.  90.  123 
Vita  Silvestri,  cf.  also  Sylvester, 
118,  159,  161  et  seq.,  165-168,  196 
Vitteleschi,  Cardinal,  194 
Voragine,  120 

Walther  von  der  Vogelweide,  180 
Wetzel,  186-187 

Wills  in  favor  of  the  Church,  32 
WiTTiG,  J.,  29 
Wzrol,  Ludwig.  23 
Zahn,  Theodor,  21 
Zosimus.   38,   56-57,   65,   89,  128, 
130,  141 


Studies  ill  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law 

edited  by  the 

Faculty  of  Political  Science  of  Columbia  University 


VOLUME  I,  1891-92.   2nd  Ed.,  1897.   396  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem.   A  Study  In  Statistics. 

iiy  Walter  A.  Willcox,  Ph.D.    Price,  73  cents. 

2.  The  History  of  Tariff  AdmlnlMtratlon  In  the  United  States,  from  Colonial 

Times  to  the  McKlnley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  John  Dean  Goss,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  Ownership  on  Manhattan  Island. 

cy  Ghorgk  Ashton  Black,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1,00. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts. 

By  Charles  H.  J.  Douglas,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  11,  1892-93.   (See  note  on  page  4.) 

1.  TheEconomlcsof  the  Russian  village.  By  Isaac  A.  Hourwich,  Ph.D.  {Out  of  print.) 

2.  Bankruptcy.   A  Study  In  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  Samuel  W.  Dunscomb,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    {Not  sold  separately.) 

3.  Special  Assessments  :  A  Study  In  Municipal  Finance. 

By  Victor  Roshwater,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1898.    Price,  |i.oo, 

VOLUME  III,  1893.  465  pp.  (Sold  only  in  Sets.)  ^ 

1.  'History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies. 

By  Cortland  F.  Bishop,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies. 

By  Gborgb  L.  Bker,  A.M.    {Not  sold  separately^ 

VOLUME  IV,  1893-94.  438  pp.  (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  Financial  History  of  Tirginia.  By  Willxam  Z.  Riplky,  Ph.D.  Price,  $i.oo. 

2.  *The  Inheritance  Tax.  By  Max  West,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1908.    Price,  $2.00. 

3.  History  of  Taxation  in  Vermont.    By  Frederick  A.  Wood,  Ph.D.   {Not  sold  separately.) 

VOLUME  V,  1895-96.  498  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  Double  Taxation  in  the  United  States.  By  Francis  Walker,  Ph.D.  Price,  ^i.oo. 
3.  The  Separation  of  Governmental  Powers. 

By  William  Bondy,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.  Price,  ^i.oo. 
3.  Municipai  Government  in  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  Dhlos  F.  Wilcox,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

VOLUME  VI,  1896.  601  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

History  of  Proprietary  Government  In  Pennsylvania. 

By  William  Robert  Shepherd,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  VII,  1896.  512  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  History  of  the  Transition  fi*om  Provincial  to  Commonwealth.  Govern- 
ment in  Massachusetts.  By  Harry  A.  (Jushing,  Ph.D.   Price,  %i.oo. 

5.  *  Speculation  on  the  Stock  and  Produce  Exchanges  of  the  United  States. 

By  Henry  Crosby  Emery,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  VIII,  1896-98.  551pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Struggle  between  President  Johnson  and  Congress  over  Recon- 
struction. By  Charles  Ernest  Chadsey,  Ph.D.    Price,  %i.oo. 
S.  Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  State  Educational  Administration. 

By  ^V  iLLLAM  Clarence  Webster,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

3.  The  Abolition  of  Privateering  and  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

By  Francis  R.  Stark,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

4.  Public  Administration  in  Massachusetts.    The  Relation  of  Central  to 

Liocal  Activity.  By  Robert  Harvey  Whitten,  Ph.D.   Price.  %x.oo. 

VOLUME  IX,  1897-98.  617  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  *English  I.ocal  Government  of  To-day.  A  Study  of  the  Relations  of  Cen- 
tral  and  Local  Government.  By  Milo  Roy  Maltbib,  Ph.D.   Price,  |2.oo. 

5.  German  Wage  Theories.  A  History  of  their  Development. 

By  James  W .  Crock,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo 
3.  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  New  Tork  State. 

By  John  Archibald  Fatrlib.  Ph.D.    Price.  «i.ck? 


VOLUME  X,  1898-99.   500  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  Sympathetic  Strikes  and  Sympathetic  Lockoiits. 

By  Fkbd  S.  Hall,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i.oo. 
2  *  Rhode  Island  and  the  Formation  of  the  Union. 

By  Frank  Greene  Bates,  Ph.D.    Price,  $j  50. 
8.  Centralized  Administration  of  ILiquor  Laws  in  the  American  Common- 
wealths. By  Clement  Moorb  Lacey  Sites,  Ph  D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XI,  1899.  495  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00;  paper  covers,  $3.50. 

The  Growth  of  Cities.  By  Adna  Ferrik  Weber,  Ph.  D, 

VOLUME  XII,  1899-1800.   586  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  History  and  Functions  of  Central  Labor  Unions. 

By  William  Maxwell  Burke,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i.oo. 

2.  Colonial  Immigration  Laws.         By  Edward  Emberson  Proper,  A3I-    Price,  75  cents. 

3.  History  of  Military  Pension  Legislation  in  the  United  States. 

By  William  Henry  Glasson,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

4.  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau. 

By  Charles  E.  Merriam,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  2III,  1901.  570  pages.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Legal  Property  Relations  of  Married  Parties.  ^,  ^  . 

By  IsiDOR  LoEB,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50, 

2.  Political  Nativism  in  Xew  York  State.       By  Louis  Dow  Scisco,  Ph.D.  Price,  $2.00. 

3.  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia.  By  Edwin  C.  Woolley,  Ph.D.   Price,  ^i.oo. 

VOLUME  XIV,  1901-1902.  576  pages.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Loyalism  in  New  York  during  the  American  Revolution. 

By  Alexander  Clarence  Flick,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^2.00. 

3.  The  Economic  Theory  of  Risk  and  Insurance. 

By  Allan  H.  Willbtt,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50, 

3.  The  Eastern  Question :  A  Study  in  Diplomacy. 

By  Stephen  P.  H.  Duggan,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XV,  1902.  427  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $3.50 ;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

Crime  in  Its  Relations  to  Social  Progress.  By  Arthur  Cleveland  Hall,  Ph.D. 

TOLUME  XVI,  1902-1903.  547  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Past  and  Present  of  Commerce  in  Japan. 

By  Yetaro  Kinosita,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

2,  The  Employment  of  Women  in  the  Clothing  Trade. 

By  Mabel  Hurd  Willet,  Ph.D     Price,  $1.50. 

8t  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  Ohio. 

By  Samuel  P.  Orth,  Ph.D.    Price,  I1.50. 

VOLUME  XVII,  1903.  635  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1,  *  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  the  Administration  of  Indiana. 

By  William  A.  Rawlks,  Ph.D.   Price,  $2.50. 

8.  Principles  of  Justice  in  Taxation.  By  Stephen  F.  Weston,  Ph.D.   Price,  |2  00. 

VOLUME  XVIII,  1903.  753  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  The  Administration  of  Iowa.  By  Harold  Martin  Bowman,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

2.  Turgot  and  the  Six  Edicts.  By  Robert  P.  Shepherd,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  Hanover  and  Prussia  1795-1803.  By  Guy  Stanton  Ford,  Ph.D.   Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XIX,  1903-1905.  588  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Josiah  Tucker,  Economist.  By  Walter  Ernest  Clark,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i  50, 

2 .  History  and  Criticism  of  the  X.abor  Theory  of  Value  in  English  Political 

Economy,  By  Albert  C.  Whitaker,  Ph.D.    Price,  1^1.50. 

3.  Trade  Unions  and  the  liaw  In  New  York. 

By  George  Gorham  Groat,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oa 

VOLUME  XX,  1904.  514  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1,  The  Office  of  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  England. 

By  Charles  Austin  Beard,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

S.  A  History  of  Military  Government  in  Newly  Acquired  Territory  of  the 
TJnited  States.  By  David  Y.  Thomas,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXI,  1904.  746  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  *  Treaties,  their  Making  and  Enforcement. 

By  Samuel  B.  Crandall,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

2.  The  Sociology  of  a  New  York  City  Block. 

By  Thomas  Jesse  Jones,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

3.  Pro-Malthusian  Doctrines  of  Population. 

By  Charles  E.  Stangeland,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^2.50. 


VOLUME  XXII,  1905.  620  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

The  Hlstoi*loal  Development  of  tlie  Poor  Law  of  Connecticut.  _ 

By  EuwAKD  W.  Capbn,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXIII,  1905.  594  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Economics  of  Land  Tenure  In  Georgia. 

By  Enoch  Marvin  Banks,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

2.  Mistake  In  Contract.  A  Study  In  Comparative  Jurisprudence. 

By  Edwin  C.  McKeag,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  Combination  In  the  Mining  Industry.       By  Henry  R.  Mussey,  Ph.D.   Price,  |i. 00. 

4.  The  English  Craft  Guilds  and  the  Government. 

By  Sthlla  Kramer,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i. 00. 

VOLUME  XXIV,  1906.  521  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Place  of  Magic  In  the  Intellectual  History  of  Europe. 

By  Lynn  Thokndikb,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i.oo. 

5.  The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodoslan  Code. 

By  William  K.  Boyd,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

3.  *The  International  Position  of  Japan  as  a  Great  Power. 

By  Seiji  G.  Hishida,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^2.00. 

VOLUME  XXV,  1906-07.  600  pp.   (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  *MunIcipal  Control  of  Public  Utilities.  By  O.  L.  Pond,  Ph.D.  {Not  sold  separately.) 

2.  The  Budget  in  the  American  Commonwealths. 

By  EuGHNK  E.  Agger,  Ph.D.   Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Finances  of  Cleveland.  By  Charles  C.  Williamson,  Ph.D.   Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXVI,  1907.  559  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Trade  and  Currency  In  Early  Oregon.        By  James  H.  Gilbert,  Ph.D.   Price,  $i.oo. 

2.  Luther's  Table  TalK.  By  Preserved  Smith,  Ph.D.   Price,  $1.00. 

a.  The  Tobacco  Industry  in  the  United  States. 

By  Meyer  Jacobstbin,  Ph.D.   Price,  $1.50. 

4.  Social  Democracy  and  Population.         By  Alvan  A.  Tenney,  Ph.D.  Price,  75  cents. 

VOLUME  XXVII,  1907.  678  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1 .  The  Economic  Policy  of  Robert  Walpole.   By  Norris  A.  Brisco,  Ph.D.   Price,  $1.50. 

2.  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  By  Abraham  Berglund,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 
JI.  The  Taxation  of  Corporations  In  Massachusetts. 

By  Harry  G.  Friedman,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXVIII,  1907.  564  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Be  Witt  Clinton  and  the  Origin  of  the  Spoils  System  in  New  York. 

By  Howard  Lkk  McBain,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  The  Development  of  the  Legislature  of  Colonial  Virginia. 

By  Elmer  I.  Miller,  Ph.D.   Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Distribution  of  Ownership,    By  Joseph  Harding  Underwood,  Ph.D.  Price,$i.5o. 

VOLUME  XXIX,  1808.  703  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  Early  New  England  Towns.  By  Anne  Bush  AIacLear,  Ph.D.   Price,  ^1.50. 

2.  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province,         By  William  H.  Fry,  Ph.D.   Price, I3.00. 

VOLUME  XXX,  1908.  712  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1664—1738.  By  Edwin  P.  Tanner,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXI,  1908.  575  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Private  Freight  Cars  and  American  Railroads, 

By  L.  D.  H.  Weld,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  Ohio  before  1850.  By  Robert  E.  Chaddock,  Ph.D.    Price,  I1.50 

3.  Consanguineous  Marriages  In  the  American  Population. 

By  George  t^.  Louis  y\KNER,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

4.  Adolphe  Quetelet  as  Statistician.  By  Frank  H.  Hankins,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  XXXII,  1908.  705  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

The  Enforcement  of  the  Statutes  of  Laborers.       By  Bertha  Haven  Putnam,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXIII,  1908-1909.  635  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1,  Factory  Legislation  in  Maine.  By  E.  Stagg  Whitin,  A.B.   Price,  Ji.oo. 

8,  *  Psychological  Interpretations  of  Society, 

By  Michael  M.  Davis,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 
8.  *  An  Introduction  to  the  Sources  relating  to  the  Germanic  Invasions. 

By  Carlton  Huntley  Hayes,  Ph.D.    i'rice,  $1.50. 


VOLUME  XXXIV,  1909.   628  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [89]  Transportation  and  Industrial  Development  In  the  Middle  West. 

By  William  F.  Gephakt,  Pu.D.    Piice,  ^a.o*. 
t.  [90]  Social  Reform  and  the  Reformation. 

By  Jacob  Salwyn  Schapiro,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.as. 
t.  [91]  Responsibility  for  Crime.  By  Philip  A.  Parsons,  Ph.D.   Price,  $1.30. 

VOLUME  XXXV,  1909.  568  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [98]  Tlie  Conflict  over  th.e  Judicial  Powers  In  the  United  States  to  1870. 

By  Charles  Grove  Haines,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 
8.  [93]  A  Study  of  the  Population  of  Manhattan vllle. 

By  Howard  Brown  Woolston,  Ph.D.    Price,  35. 
8.  [94]  *  Divorce:  A  Study  In  Social  Causation. 

By  James  P.  Lichtbnbbrghr,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXVI,  1910.   542  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [951  *  Reconstruction  In  Texas.  By  Charles  William  Ramsdell.  Ph.D  Price,  fa.so. 
S.  [96 1  *  The  Transition  in  Virginia  from  Colony  to  Commonwealtlj. 

By  Charles  Ramsdell  Lingley,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i.so. 

VOLUME  XXXVII,  1910.  606  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [97]  Standards  of  Reasonableness  in  Local  Freight  Discriminations. 

By  John  Maurice  Clark,  Ph.D.    Price,  li.as* 
8.  [98]  Legal  Development  in  Colonial  Massachusetts. 

By  Charles  J.  Hilkey,  Ph.D.    Price, 15. 
8.  [99]  ♦Social  and  Mental  Traits  of  the  Negro. 

By  Howard  W.  Odum,  Ph.D.    Price,  $t.o9. 

VOLUME  XXXVIII,  1910.  463  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [100]  The  Public  Domain  and  Democracy. 

By  Robert  Tudor  Hill,  Ph.D.  Price,  .00. 
ft.  [lOl]  Organlsmic  Theories  of  the  State. 

By  Francis  W,  Coker,  Ph.D.  Price,  >i. 50. 

VOLUME  XXXIX,  1910-1911.   651pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [103]  The  Making  of  the  Balkan  States. 

By  William  Smith  Murray,  Ph.D.    Price,  I1.50. 

2.  [1031  Political  History  of  New  York  State  during  the  Period  of  the  Civil 

War.  By  Sidney  David  Brumiier,  Ph.  D.    Price,  3.00. 

VOLUME  XL,  1911.   633  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [104]  A  Survey  of  Constitutional  Development  in  China. 

By  Hawkling  L.  Yen,  Ph  D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 
».  [105]  Ohio  Politics  during  the  Civil  War  Period. 

By  Geopge  H.  Porter,  Ph.D.    Price.  $1.75. 

3.  [106]  The  Territorial  Basis  of  Government  under  tlie  State  Constitutions. 

By  Alfred  Zantzinger  Reed,  Ph.D.    Price, ;^  1.75. 

VOLUME  XLI,  1911.   514  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[107]  New  Jersey  as  a  Royal  Province.  By  Edgar  Jacob  Fisheh,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XLII,  1911.   400  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $3.00;  paper  covers,  $2.50. 

[108]  Attitude  of  American  Courts  In  Labor  Cases. 

By  Georcb  Gorham  Groat,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLIII,  1911.   633  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [109]  *lndustrlal  Causes  of  Congestion  of  Population  in  New  York  City. 

By  Edward  Kwing  Pratt,  Ph.D.    Price,  |2.oa. 

2.  [110]  Education  and  the  Mores.  By  F.  Stuart  Cuapin,  Ph.D.  Price,  75  cents. 
8.  [Ill]  The  British  Consuls  in  the  Confederacy. 

By  MiLLEDGH  L.  BoNKAM,  Jr.,  Ph.D.   Price,  |3.o«. 

VOLUMES  XLIV  and  XLV,  1911.   745  pp. 
Price  for  the  two  volumes,  cloth,  $6.00  ;  paper  covers,  $5.00. 

[lis  and  113]  The  Scouomic  Principles  of  Confucius  and  his  School. 

By  Chen  Huan-Chano,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLVI,  1911-1912.  623  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1141  The  Rlcardian  Socialists.  By  Esther  Lowenthal,  Ph  D.   Price.  |i.oo 

3.  [115J  Ibrahim  Pasha,  Grand  Yizier  of  Suleiman,  tlxe  Magnificent. 

By  Hester  Donaldson  Jenkins,  Pn.D.  Price,  $t.oo. 

3.  [lie]  *Syndicallsm  in  Prance. 

By  Louis  Lbvihb,  Ph.D.   Second  edition.  1914.  Price,  ^1.50. 

4.  [  117]  *A  IIoo*»ier  "Village.  By  Newell  Leroy  Sims,  PU  D.  Price.  I1.50. 


VOLUME  XL VII,  1912.   544  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [118]  The  Politics  of  Michigan,  18G5-1878. 

By  Harrihttb  M.  Dilla,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2  00. 

2,  [1 19]  *The  United  States  Beet  Su^ar  Industry  and  the  Tariff. 

By  Roy       Hlakky,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XL VIII,  1912.   493  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [ISO]  Isldor  of  Seville.  By  Ernest  Brkh>ut,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $2.00. 

a.  [121]  Progress  and  Unlformltyln  Child-Labor  Legislation. 

By  William  Fielding  Ogburn,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1,75. 

VOLUME  XLIX,  1912.   592  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [ISS]  British  Radicalism  1791-1797.  By  Walter  Phklps  Hall.   Price,  Ja.oo. 

2.  [183]  A  Comparative  Study  of  the  Law  of  Corporations. 

By  Arthur  K.  Kuhm,  Ph.D.    Price,  I1.50. 

3.  [184]  *The  Negro  at  Work  In  Nevr  York  City. 

By  Gborgb  E.  Haynhs.  Ph.D.    Price, ^i. 25. 

VOLUME  L,  1911.   481  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

i.  [185]  *The  Spirit  of  Chinese  Philanthropy.  By  Yai  Yue  Tsu,  Ph.D.  Price,  $i.oo. 
8.  [186]  *The  Allen  In  China.  By  Vi.  Kyuin  Wellington  Koo,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2-50. 

VOLUME  LI,  1912.   4to.  Atlas.   Price:  cloth,  $1.50;  paper  covers,  $100. 

1.  [187]  The  Sale  of  Liquor  In  the  South. 

By  Leonards.  Blakey,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LII,  1912.  489  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [188]  *ProvlncIal  and  Local  Taxation  lu  Canada. 

By  Solomon  Vinbberg,  Ph.D.  Price,  $i.$o. 

8.  [189]  *The  Distribution  of  Income. 

By  Frank  Hatch  Streichtoff,  Ph.D.  Price,  ^1.50. 

3.  [130]  *The  Finances  of  Vermont.  By  Frederick  A.  Wood,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  LIII,  191S.   789  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[131]  The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  In  Florida.       By  W.  W.  Davis,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIV,  1913.   604  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [138]  *  Prlvlleees  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  of  the  United  States. 

By  Arnold  Johnson  Lien,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

S.  [133]   The  Supreme  Court  and  Unconstitutional  Legrlslatlon. 

By  Blaink  Fkek  iMouRK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [134]  *lndlan  Slavery  In  Colonial  Times  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States.  By  Almon  Wheeler  Laubkk,  Ph.D.  Pr.ce.lj.oo. 

VOLUME  LV,  1913.  6G5  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [135]   *A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  Tork. 

By  HoMLK  A.  bXEBBiNS,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^4.00. 

3.  [  136]  *The  Early  Persecutions  of  the  Christians. 

By  Leon  H.  Canfield,  Ph.D.    Price  jfi  «;o. 


VOLUME  LVI,  1913.   406  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [137]  Speculation  on  the  New  York  Stock  Excliange,  1904-1907. 

By  Algernon  Ashbukner  Osborne.    Price,  $1.50. 

«.  [138]  The  Policy  of  the  United  States  towards  Industrial  Monopoly. 

By  Oswald  Whitman  Knauth,  Ph.D.    Price  $2  oj. 

VOLUME  LVII,  1914.  670  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [139]  *The  Civil  Service  of  Great  Britain. 

By  Robert  Moses,  Ph.D.  Price,  $2.00. 
S.  [140]  The  Financial  History  of  New  York  State. 

By  Don  C.  Sowers.  Price,  $2.50. 

VOLUME  L VIII,  1914.  684  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4  00. 

[14  I]  Reconstruction  In  North  Carolina. 

By  J.  G.  DE  Roulhac  Hamilton,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIX,  1914.  625  pp.  Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1481  The  Development  of  Modern  Turkey  by  means  of  its  Press. 

By  Ahmed  Emin,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 

2.  [143]  The  System  of  Taxation  in  China,  1614-1911. 

by  Shao-Kwan  Chen,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $i.oo. 

3.  [144]  The  Currency  Problem  in  China.  By  Wen  Pin  Wei,  Ph.D.   Price,  $1.25. 

4.  [145]  Jewish  Immigration  to  the  United  States. 

By  Samuel  Joseph,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1  50. 

VOLUME  LX,  1914. 

1.  [146]  *Constantine  the  Great  and  Christianity. 

By  Christopher  Bush  Coleman,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^2.00. 

2.  [147]  Toleration  under  Constantine.  By  Maud  Aline  Huttmann,   {In  preis.) 

VOLUME  LXI,  1914. 

1.  [148]  The  Conductors:  A  Study  of  Organized  Railway  Labor. 

By  Edwin  Clyde  Robbins.    Price,  |i. 50. 

2.  [149]  The  Finances  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

By  Yin-Ch'u  Ma.    {In press.) 

3.  [150]  Emlle  Durkheim's  Contributions  to  Sociological  Theory. 

By  Charles  Elmer  Gehlkh.    (/«  press.) 

VOLUME  LXII,  1914. 

[151]  The  Journal  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Fifteen  on  Reconstruction, 
39th  Congress,  1865— 1867.  By  Benjamin  B.  Kendrick.    [In  press.) 


The  price  for  each  separate  monograph  is  for  paper-couered  copies;  separate  monographs  marked*,  can 
be  supplied  bound  in  cloth,  for  50c.  additional.    All  prices  are  net. 


The  set  of  fifty-nine  volumes,  covering  monographs  1-145,  is  offered,  bound,  for  $196:  except  that 
Volume  II  can  be  supplied  only  in  part,  and  in  paper  covers,  no.  1  of  that  volume  being  out  of  print. 
Volumes  m,  IV  and  XXV,  can  now  be  supplied  only  in  connection  with  complete  sets. 


For  further  information,  apply  to 


Prof.  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGIVIAN,  Columbia  University, 

or  to  JVIessrs.  LONGIVIANS,  GREEN  &  CO..  New  York. 
London:  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  Orchard  House,  Westminster. 


f 


f 


*1v 


Date  Due 

ADD     1    g  .^ir\- 

^  

 "^ki  Ai  liiil  iiiff 

':  Her 

r 

1  4  'II 

